lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: Johann Spurzheim was Gall's most important collaborator. He worked as Gall's anatomist until 1813 when for unknown reasons they had a permanent falling out. Publishing under his own name Spurzheim successfully disseminated phrenology throughout the United Kingdom during his lecture tours through 1814 and 1815 and the United States in 1832 where he would eventually die.

Question: Based on what we can gather about how public the spat between Spurzheim and Gaff was at the time, if a time traveler could theoretically return to 1813, if it likely that one or both of the scientists would be willing to talk about it with this kindly stranger that they had just met?
Answer: NO

Question: Have any sources available to modern-day historians come from outside sources that could be giving false accounts of what happened between Spurzheim and Gaff?
Answer: NO
Passage: Johann Spurzheim was Gall's most important collaborator. Spurzheim worked as an anatomist under Gall until the two permanently broke off their friendship for reasons that are not known. Publishing under his own name Spurzheim successfully disseminated phrenology throughout the United Kingdom during his lecture tours through 1814 and 1815 and the United States in 1832 where he would eventually die.

Question: Based on what we can gather about how public the spat between Spurzheim and Gaff was at the time, if a time traveler could theoretically return to 1813, if it likely that one or both of the scientists would be willing to talk about it with this kindly stranger that they had just met?
Answer: NO

Question: Have any sources available to modern-day historians come from outside sources that could be giving false accounts of what happened between Spurzheim and Gaff?
Answer: NO
Passage: Johann Spurzheim was Gall's most important collaborator. He worked as Gall's anatomist until 1813 when the pair had a permanent falling out for reasons that were unknown at the time but have since been discovered in old correspondence between the two. Publishing under his own name Spurzheim successfully disseminated phrenology throughout the United Kingdom during his lecture tours through 1814 and 1815 and the United States in 1832 where he would eventually die.

Question: Have any sources available to modern-day historians come from outside sources that could be giving false accounts of what happened between Spurzheim and Gaff?
Answer: NO
Passage: Johann Spurzheim was Gall's most important collaborator. He worked as Gall's anatomist until 1813 when the pair fell out permanently for reasons that were well documented in their own letters to scientific journals and in the local gossip press. Publishing under his own name Spurzheim successfully disseminated phrenology throughout the United Kingdom during his lecture tours through 1814 and 1815 and the United States in 1832 where he would eventually die.

Question: Based on what we can gather about how public the spat between Spurzheim and Gaff was at the time, if a time traveler could theoretically return to 1813, if it likely that one or both of the scientists would be willing to talk about it with this kindly stranger that they had just met?
Answer: YES

Question: Have any sources available to modern-day historians come from outside sources that could be giving false accounts of what happened between Spurzheim and Gaff?
Answer: YES
Passage: Leith was historically the port of Edinburgh, an arrangement of unknown date that was confirmed by the royal charter Robert the Bruce granted to the city in 1329. The port developed a separate identity from Edinburgh, which to some extent it still retains, and it was a matter of great resentment when the two burghs merged in 1920 into the City of Edinburgh. Even today the parliamentary seat is known as "Edinburgh North and Leith". The loss of traditional industries and commerce (the last shipyard closed in 1983) resulted in economic decline. The Edinburgh Waterfront development has transformed old dockland areas from Leith to Granton into residential areas with shopping and leisure facilities and helped rejuvenate the area. With the redevelopment, Edinburgh has gained the business of cruise liner companies which now provide cruises to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Question: Would a person studying Edinburgh be able to tell the exact date when Leith became its port?
Answer: NO

Question: Would an ordinary person be able to tell whether Leith was the port of Edinburgh in 1329?
Answer: YES

Question: Does the date of the agreement that made Leith the port of Edinburgh is known or unknown?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Leith was historically the port of Edinburgh, an agreement that has an obscure precise date and was later confirmed by the royal charter Robert the Bruce granted to the city in 1329. The port developed a separate identity from Edinburgh, which to some extent it still retains, and it was a matter of great resentment when the two burghs merged in 1920 into the City of Edinburgh. Even today the parliamentary seat is known as "Edinburgh North and Leith". The loss of traditional industries and commerce (the last shipyard closed in 1983) resulted in economic decline. The Edinburgh Waterfront development has transformed old dockland areas from Leith to Granton into residential areas with shopping and leisure facilities and helped rejuvenate the area. With the redevelopment, Edinburgh has gained the business of cruise liner companies which now provide cruises to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Question: Would a person studying Edinburgh be able to tell the exact date when Leith became its port?
Answer: NO

Question: Would an ordinary person be able to tell whether Leith was the port of Edinburgh in 1329?
Answer: YES

Question: Does the date of the agreement that made Leith the port of Edinburgh is known or unknown?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Leith was historically the unknown port of Edinburgh, an arrangement that was confirmed by the royal charter Robert the Bruce granted to the city in 1329. The port developed a separate identity from Edinburgh, which to some extent it still retains, and it was a matter of great resentment when the two burghs merged in 1920 into the City of Edinburgh. Even today the parliamentary seat is known as "Edinburgh North and Leith". The loss of traditional industries and commerce (the last shipyard closed in 1983) resulted in economic decline. The Edinburgh Waterfront development has transformed old dockland areas from Leith to Granton into residential areas with shopping and leisure facilities and helped rejuvenate the area. With the redevelopment, Edinburgh has gained the business of cruise liner companies which now provide cruises to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Question: Does the date of the agreement that made Leith the port of Edinburgh is known or unknown?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Leith was historically the port of Edinburgh, an arrangement with a known date that was confirmed by the royal charter Robert the Bruce granted to the city in 1329. The port developed a separate identity from Edinburgh, which to some extent it still retains, and it was a matter of great resentment when the two burghs merged in 1920 into the City of Edinburgh. Even today the parliamentary seat is known as "Edinburgh North and Leith". The loss of traditional industries and commerce (the last shipyard closed in 1983) resulted in economic decline. The Edinburgh Waterfront development has transformed old dockland areas from Leith to Granton into residential areas with shopping and leisure facilities and helped rejuvenate the area. With the redevelopment, Edinburgh has gained the business of cruise liner companies which now provide cruises to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Question: Would a person studying Edinburgh be able to tell the exact date when Leith became its port?
Answer: YES

Question: Would an ordinary person be able to tell whether Leith was the port of Edinburgh in 1329?
Answer: YES

Question: Does the date of the agreement that made Leith the port of Edinburgh is known or unknown?
Answer: known
Passage: In 1803, Napoleon ordered the fusion of the cantons of Aargau, Baden and Fricktal. Aarau was declared the capital of the new, enlarged canton of Aargau. In 1820 the city wall was torn down, with the exception of the individual towers and gates, and the defensive ditches were filled in.

Question: Would a person entering Aarau after 1820 pass through a gate?
Answer: YES

Question: Would the people of Aarau be able to fire at possible invaders from a defensive tower after the year 1820?
Answer: YES

Question: Did any defensive structures remain in Aarau after 1820?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1803, Napoleon ordered the fusion of the cantons of Aargau, Baden and Fricktal. Aarau was declared the capital of the new, enlarged canton of Aargau. In 1820 the portions of the city wall between the individual towers and gates were torn down, and the defensive ditches were filled in.

Question: Would a person entering Aarau after 1820 pass through a gate?
Answer: YES

Question: Would the people of Aarau be able to fire at possible invaders from a defensive tower after the year 1820?
Answer: YES

Question: Did any defensive structures remain in Aarau after 1820?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1803, Napoleon ordered the fusion of the cantons of Aargau, Baden and Fricktal. Aarau was declared the capital of the new, enlarged canton of Aargau. In 1820 the city's defensive towers and walls were torn down, with the exception of the individual gates in the wall, and the defensive ditches were filled in.

Question: Would a person entering Aarau after 1820 pass through a gate?
Answer: YES

Question: Would the people of Aarau be able to fire at possible invaders from a defensive tower after the year 1820?
Answer: NO
Passage: In 1803, Napoleon ordered the fusion of the cantons of Aargau, Baden and Fricktal. Aarau was declared the capital of the new, enlarged canton of Aargau. In 1820 the city wall was torn down, including all of the towers and gates, and the defensive ditches were filled in.

Question: Would a person entering Aarau after 1820 pass through a gate?
Answer: NO

Question: Would the people of Aarau be able to fire at possible invaders from a defensive tower after the year 1820?
Answer: NO

Question: Did any defensive structures remain in Aarau after 1820?
Answer: NO
Passage: Such was the difficulty of this task that the answer to many of the inherent challenges was along the lines of "Yeager better have paid-up insurance". Two nights before the scheduled date for the flight, Yeager broke two ribs when he fell from a horse. He was worried that the injury would remove him from the mission and reported that he went to a civilian doctor in nearby Rosamond, California, who taped his ribs. Besides his wife who was riding with him, Yeager told only his friend and fellow project pilot Jack Ridley about the accident. On the day of the flight, Yeager was in such pain that he could not seal the X-1's hatch by himself. Ridley rigged up a device, using the end of a broom handle as an extra lever, to allow Yeager to seal the hatch.

Question: Was only one person needed to close the hatch on the X-1?
Answer: NO

Question: Were Yeager's injuries severe enough to cause difficulties operating the X-1?
Answer: YES

Question: Would someone have to help Yeager with anything in the X-1?
Answer: YES
Passage: Such was the difficulty of this task that the answer to many of the inherent challenges was along the lines of "Yeager better have paid-up insurance". Two nights before the scheduled date for the flight, Yeager broke two ribs when he fell from a horse. He was worried that the injury would remove him from the mission and reported that he went to a civilian doctor in nearby Rosamond, California, who taped his ribs. Besides his wife who was riding with him, Yeager told only his friend and fellow project pilot Jack Ridley about the accident. On the day of the flight, Yeager was in such pain that he needed someone else's help sealing the X-1's hatch by himself. Ridley rigged up a device, using the end of a broom handle as an extra lever, to allow Yeager to seal the hatch.

Question: Was only one person needed to close the hatch on the X-1?
Answer: NO

Question: Were Yeager's injuries severe enough to cause difficulties operating the X-1?
Answer: YES

Question: Would someone have to help Yeager with anything in the X-1?
Answer: YES
Passage: Such was the difficulty of this task that the answer to many of the inherent challenges was along the lines of "Yeager better have paid-up insurance". Two nights before the scheduled date for the flight, Yeager broke two ribs when he fell from a horse. He was worried that the injury would remove him from the mission and reported that he went to a civilian doctor in nearby Rosamond, California, who taped his ribs. Besides his wife who was riding with him, Yeager told only his friend and fellow project pilot Jack Ridley about the accident. On the day of the flight, Yeager could not feel any pain so he was able to seal the X-1's hatch by himself. Ridley rigged up a device, using the end of a broom handle as an extra lever, to allow Yeager to seal the hatch.

Question: Was only one person needed to close the hatch on the X-1?
Answer: YES

Question: Were Yeager's injuries severe enough to cause difficulties operating the X-1?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone have to help Yeager with anything in the X-1?
Answer: NO
Passage: Such was the difficulty of this task that the answer to many of the inherent challenges was along the lines of "Yeager better have paid-up insurance". Two nights before the scheduled date for the flight, Yeager broke two ribs when he fell from a horse. He was worried that the injury would remove him from the mission and reported that he went to a civilian doctor in nearby Rosamond, California, who taped his ribs. Besides his wife who was riding with him, Yeager told only his friend and fellow project pilot Jack Ridley about the accident. On the day of the flight, Yeager was in such pain that he could seal the X-1's hatch by himself, but it was difficult. Ridley rigged up a device, using the end of a broom handle as an extra lever, to allow Yeager to seal the hatch.

Question: Was only one person needed to close the hatch on the X-1?
Answer: YES

Question: Were Yeager's injuries severe enough to cause difficulties operating the X-1?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts between various English lords and nobles in support of two different royal families descended from Edward III. In 1461 the conflict reached a milestone when the House of York supplanted its rival, the House of Lancaster, as the ruling royal house in England. Edward IV, leader of the Yorkists, seized the throne from the Lancastrian king, Henry VI, who was captured in 1465 and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The Lancastrian queen, Margaret of Anjou, and her son, Edward of Lancaster, fled to Scotland and organised resistance. Edward IV crushed the uprisings and pressured the Scottish government to force Margaret out; the House of Lancaster went into exile in France. As the Yorkists tightened their hold over England, Edward rewarded his supporters, including his chief adviser, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, elevating them to higher titles and awarding them land confiscated from their defeated foes. The Earl grew to disapprove of the King's rule, however, and their relationship later became strained.

Question: Would it be fair to draw a parallel between the strained relationship between the king and the earl and that of the two sides in the War of the Roses?
Answer: YES

Question: Does it sound like the reason for the troubled relationship between the earl and the king was something that was a private matter between them that was not widely known?
Answer: NO

Question: If large groups of their countrymen had similar positions on whatever issue had divided the king and the earl at this time, would you expect the people who took one side to be roughly in agreement on the question of whether or not they favored the king's rule?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts between various English lords and nobles in support of two different royal families descended from Edward III. In 1461 the conflict reached a milestone when the House of York supplanted its rival, the House of Lancaster, as the ruling royal house in England. Edward IV, leader of the Yorkists, seized the throne from the Lancastrian king, Henry VI, who was captured in 1465 and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The Lancastrian queen, Margaret of Anjou, and her son, Edward of Lancaster, fled to Scotland and organised resistance. Edward IV crushed the uprisings and pressured the Scottish government to force Margaret out; the House of Lancaster went into exile in France. As the Yorkists tightened their hold over England, Edward rewarded his supporters, including his chief adviser, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, elevating them to higher titles and awarding them land confiscated from their defeated foes. Neville, Earl of Warwick, would later come to oppose aspects of the king's reign, and their relationship suffered as a result.

Question: Would it be fair to draw a parallel between the strained relationship between the king and the earl and that of the two sides in the War of the Roses?
Answer: YES

Question: Does it sound like the reason for the troubled relationship between the earl and the king was something that was a private matter between them that was not widely known?
Answer: NO

Question: If large groups of their countrymen had similar positions on whatever issue had divided the king and the earl at this time, would you expect the people who took one side to be roughly in agreement on the question of whether or not they favored the king's rule?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts between various English lords and nobles in support of two different royal families descended from Edward III. In 1461 the conflict reached a milestone when the House of York supplanted its rival, the House of Lancaster, as the ruling royal house in England. Edward IV, leader of the Yorkists, seized the throne from the Lancastrian king, Henry VI, who was captured in 1465 and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The Lancastrian queen, Margaret of Anjou, and her son, Edward of Lancaster, fled to Scotland and organised resistance. Edward IV crushed the uprisings and pressured the Scottish government to force Margaret out; the House of Lancaster went into exile in France. As the Yorkists tightened their hold over England, Edward rewarded his supporters, including his chief adviser, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, elevating them to higher titles and awarding them land confiscated from their defeated foes. Although the Earl was never known to disapprove of the King's rule, however, their relationship nonetheless later became strained.

Question: Does it sound like the reason for the troubled relationship between the earl and the king was something that was a private matter between them that was not widely known?
Answer: YES

Question: If large groups of their countrymen had similar positions on whatever issue had divided the king and the earl at this time, would you expect the people who took one side to be roughly in agreement on the question of whether or not they favored the king's rule?
Answer: NO
Passage: The Wars of the Roses were a series of conflicts between various English lords and nobles in support of two different royal families descended from Edward III. In 1461 the conflict reached a milestone when the House of York supplanted its rival, the House of Lancaster, as the ruling royal house in England. Edward IV, leader of the Yorkists, seized the throne from the Lancastrian king, Henry VI, who was captured in 1465 and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The Lancastrian queen, Margaret of Anjou, and her son, Edward of Lancaster, fled to Scotland and organised resistance. Edward IV crushed the uprisings and pressured the Scottish government to force Margaret out; the House of Lancaster went into exile in France. As the Yorkists tightened their hold over England, Edward rewarded his supporters, including his chief adviser, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, elevating them to higher titles and awarding them land confiscated from their defeated foes. The Earl continued to support the King's rule, even as their relationship later became strained for well-known, yet unrelated reasons.

Question: Would it be fair to draw a parallel between the strained relationship between the king and the earl and that of the two sides in the War of the Roses?
Answer: NO

Question: Does it sound like the reason for the troubled relationship between the earl and the king was something that was a private matter between them that was not widely known?
Answer: NO

Question: If large groups of their countrymen had similar positions on whatever issue had divided the king and the earl at this time, would you expect the people who took one side to be roughly in agreement on the question of whether or not they favored the king's rule?
Answer: NO
Passage: Coolidge considered the 1920 Republican victory as a rejection of the Wilsonian position that the United States should join the League of Nations. While not completely opposed to the idea, Coolidge believed the League, as then constituted, did not serve American interests, and he did not advocate U.S. membership. He spoke in favor of the United States joining the Permanent Court of International Justice (World Court), provided that the nation would not be bound by advisory decisions. In 1926, the Senate eventually approved joining the Court (with reservations). The League of Nations accepted the reservations, but it suggested some modifications of its own. The Senate failed to act and so the United States did not join the World Court.

Question: In 1926 did the Senate accept the modifications that the League of Nations suggested then?
Answer: NO

Question: Did Coolidge feel bound to abide by Wilson's vision of joining the League of Nations?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the United States join the World Court in 1926?
Answer: NO
Passage: Coolidge considered the 1920 Republican victory as a rejection of the Wilsonian position that the United States should join the League of Nations. While not completely opposed to the idea, Coolidge believed the League, as then constituted, did not serve American interests, and he did not advocate U.S. membership. He spoke in favor of the United States joining the Permanent Court of International Justice (World Court), provided that the nation would not be bound by advisory decisions. In 1926, the Senate eventually approved joining the Court (with reservations). The League of Nations accepted the reservations, but it suggested some modifications of its own. The Senate voted to table voting on joining the World court so the United States did not join it.

Question: In 1926 did the Senate accept the modifications that the League of Nations suggested then?
Answer: NO

Question: Did Coolidge feel bound to abide by Wilson's vision of joining the League of Nations?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the United States join the World Court in 1926?
Answer: NO