lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: With the forward pass featuring heavily in the offensive scheme of Cochem's St. Louis University team, they won all 11 of their games in their 1906 season to score a combined 407 points to their opponents' 11. The highlight of the campaign was St. Louis' 39–0 win over Iowa. Cochems' team reportedly completed eight passes in ten attempts for four touchdowns. "The average flight distance of the passes was twenty yards." Nelson continues, "the last play demonstrated the dramatic effect that the forward pass was having on football. St. Louis was on Iowa's thirty-five-yard line with a few seconds to play. Timekeeper Walter McCormack walked onto the field to end the game when the ball was thrown twenty-five yards and caught on the dead run for a touchdown."

Question: Did St. Louis University win all of their games in 1906?
Answer: YES

Question: Did St. Louis University's opponents win any games in 1906?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the forward pass help St. Louis University win games during their 1906 season?
Answer: YES
Passage: With the forward pass featuring heavily in the offensive scheme of Cochem's St. Louis University team, their opponents won none of their 11 games in their 1906 season, allowing St. Louis University to score a combined 407 points to their opponents' 11. The highlight of the campaign was St. Louis' 39–0 win over Iowa. Cochems' team reportedly completed eight passes in ten attempts for four touchdowns. "The average flight distance of the passes was twenty yards." Nelson continues, "the last play demonstrated the dramatic effect that the forward pass was having on football. St. Louis was on Iowa's thirty-five-yard line with a few seconds to play. Timekeeper Walter McCormack walked onto the field to end the game when the ball was thrown twenty-five yards and caught on the dead run for a touchdown."

Question: Did St. Louis University win all of their games in 1906?
Answer: YES

Question: Did St. Louis University's opponents win any games in 1906?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the forward pass help St. Louis University win games during their 1906 season?
Answer: YES
Passage: With the forward pass featuring heavily in the offensive scheme of Cochem's St. Louis University team, they competed in 11 games in their 1906 season to score a combined 407 points to their opponents' 11. The highlight of the campaign was St. Louis' 39–0 win over Iowa. Cochems' team reportedly completed eight passes in ten attempts for four touchdowns. "The average flight distance of the passes was twenty yards." Nelson continues, "the last play demonstrated the dramatic effect that the forward pass was having on football. St. Louis was on Iowa's thirty-five-yard line with a few seconds to play. Timekeeper Walter McCormack walked onto the field to end the game when the ball was thrown twenty-five yards and caught on the dead run for a touchdown."

Question: Did St. Louis University win all of their games in 1906?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Did St. Louis University's opponents win any games in 1906?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Did the forward pass help St. Louis University win games during their 1906 season?
Answer: YES
Passage: The natural radioactivity of thorium and uranium made it hard to determine what was happening when these elements were bombarded with neutrons but, after correctly eliminating the presence of elements lighter than uranium but heavier than lead, Fermi concluded that they had created new elements, which he called hesperium and ausonium. The chemist Ida Noddack suggesting that some of the experiments could have produced lighter elements than lead rather than new, heavier elements. Her suggestion was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium or built the theoretical basis for this possibility. At that time, fission was thought to be improbable if not impossible on theoretical grounds. While physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, nobody expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested.

Question: Would Ida Noddack be able to convince a physicist to check for light elements after bombarding uranium with neutrons?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Ida Noddack likely the first to come up with the idea that the elements produced by bombarding uranium with neutrons could be low mass?
Answer: YES
Passage: The natural radioactivity of thorium and uranium made it hard to determine what was happening when these elements were bombarded with neutrons but, after correctly eliminating the presence of elements lighter than uranium but heavier than lead, Fermi concluded that they had created new elements, which he called hesperium and ausonium. The chemist Ida Noddack suggesting that some of the experiments could have produced lighter elements than lead rather than new, heavier elements. Her suggestion was not taken seriously at the time because her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium or built the theoretical basis for this possibility. At that time, fission was thought to be improbable if not impossible on theoretical grounds. While physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, they expected neutrons to have energy too small to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested.

Question: Would Ida Noddack be able to convince a physicist to check for light elements after bombarding uranium with neutrons?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Ida Noddack likely the first to come up with the idea that the elements produced by bombarding uranium with neutrons could be low mass?
Answer: YES
Passage: The natural radioactivity of thorium and uranium made it hard to determine what was happening when these elements were bombarded with neutrons but, after correctly eliminating the presence of elements lighter than uranium but heavier than lead, Fermi concluded that they had created new elements, which he called hesperium and ausonium. The chemist Ida Noddack suggesting that some of the experiments could have produced lighter elements than lead rather than new, heavier elements. Her suggestion was taken somewhat seriously at the time even though her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium or built the theoretical basis for this possibility. At that time, fission was thought by most to be improbable but not impossible on theoretical grounds. While nobody but Fermi expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, some expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested.

Question: Would Ida Noddack be able to convince a physicist to check for light elements after bombarding uranium with neutrons?
Answer: YES
Passage: The natural radioactivity of thorium and uranium made it hard to determine what was happening when these elements were bombarded with neutrons but, after correctly eliminating the presence of elements lighter than uranium but heavier than lead, Fermi concluded that they had created new elements, which he called hesperium and ausonium. The chemist Ida Noddack suggesting that some of the experiments could have produced lighter elements than lead rather than new, heavier elements. Her suggestion was taken seriously by some at the time even though her team had not carried out any experiments with uranium or built the theoretical basis for this possibility. At that time, fission was thought to be improbable but not impossible on theoretical grounds. While most physicists expected elements with higher atomic numbers to form from neutron bombardment of lighter elements, some expected neutrons to have enough energy to split a heavier atom into two light element fragments in the manner that Noddack suggested.

Question: Would Ida Noddack be able to convince a physicist to check for light elements after bombarding uranium with neutrons?
Answer: YES

Question: Was Ida Noddack likely the first to come up with the idea that the elements produced by bombarding uranium with neutrons could be low mass?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: There are seven wilderness areas in New Zealand as defined by the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 that fall well within the IUCN definition. Wilderness areas cannot have any human intervention and can only have indigenous species re-introduced into the area if it is compatible with conservation management strategies.

Question: Would a hiker in a New Zealand wilderness area have a chance to see a reintroduced kakapo on the other side of a bridge across a stream?
Answer: NO

Question: Would park rangers be able to enter a wilderness area on a gravel road?
Answer: NO
Passage: There are seven wilderness areas in New Zealand as defined by the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 that fall well within the IUCN definition. Wilderness areas must remain free of human intervention and can only have indigenous species re-introduced into the area if it is compatible with conservation management strategies.

Question: Would a hiker in a New Zealand wilderness area have a chance to see a reintroduced kakapo on the other side of a bridge across a stream?
Answer: NO

Question: Would park rangers be able to enter a wilderness area on a gravel road?
Answer: NO

Question: If kiwis became extirpated from a wilderness area, is there a good chance that they could be seen there again at some point in the future?
Answer: YES
Passage: There are seven wilderness areas in New Zealand as defined by the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 that fall well within the IUCN definition. Wilderness areas may have a limited degree of human intervention, but cannot have indigenous species re-introduced into the area, even if it is compatible with conservation management strategies.

Question: Would park rangers be able to enter a wilderness area on a gravel road?
Answer: YES

Question: If kiwis became extirpated from a wilderness area, is there a good chance that they could be seen there again at some point in the future?
Answer: NO
Passage: There are seven wilderness areas in New Zealand as defined by the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 that fall well within the IUCN definition. Wilderness areas may have a limited degree of human intervention, and can only have indigenous species re-introduced into the area if it is compatible with conservation management strategies.

Question: Would a hiker in a New Zealand wilderness area have a chance to see a reintroduced kakapo on the other side of a bridge across a stream?
Answer: YES

Question: Would park rangers be able to enter a wilderness area on a gravel road?
Answer: YES

Question: If kiwis became extirpated from a wilderness area, is there a good chance that they could be seen there again at some point in the future?
Answer: YES
Passage: Some sources state that "expresso" is an incorrect spelling, including "Garner's Modern American Usage". While the 'expresso' spelling is recognized as mainstream usage in some American dictionaries, some cooking websites call the 'x' variant illegitimate. Oxford Dictionaries online states "The spelling "expresso" is not used in the original Italian and is strictly incorrect, although it is common." The "Oxford English Dictionary" and "Merriam-Webster" call it a variant spelling. The "Online Etymology Dictionary" calls "expresso" a variant of "espresso". The "Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style" (2000) describes the spelling "expresso" as "wrong", and specifies "espresso" as the only correct form. The third edition of Fowler's "Modern English Usage", published by the Oxford University Press in 1996, noted that the form "espresso" "has entirely driven out the variant "expresso" (which was presumably invented under the impression that it meant 'fast, express')".

Question: If an Italian speaker were to look up the term in her own native-language dictionary, would she be able to find a definition under "ex-", as one would expect if the dictionary authors accepted such a spelling?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Italian speakers who hear "expresso" tend to treat the term the same way that pedantic English speakers might treat the expression "head over heels": recognizing what the speaker meant, and accepting it as just part of the local vernacular, even though it doesn't actually mean anything, when you think about it?
Answer: YES
Passage: Some sources state that "expresso" is an incorrect spelling, including "Garner's Modern American Usage". While the 'expresso' spelling is recognized as mainstream usage in some American dictionaries, some cooking websites call the 'x' variant illegitimate. According to Oxford Dictionaries, "expresso" spelled with an x is foreign to the original Italian and is to be considered a misspelling, even though it has grown quite common. The "Oxford English Dictionary" and "Merriam-Webster" call it a variant spelling. The "Online Etymology Dictionary" calls "expresso" a variant of "espresso". The "Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style" (2000) describes the spelling "expresso" as "wrong", and specifies "espresso" as the only correct form. The third edition of Fowler's "Modern English Usage", published by the Oxford University Press in 1996, noted that the form "espresso" "has entirely driven out the variant "expresso" (which was presumably invented under the impression that it meant 'fast, express')".

Question: If an Italian speaker were to look up the term in her own native-language dictionary, would she be able to find a definition under "ex-", as one would expect if the dictionary authors accepted such a spelling?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Italian speakers who hear "expresso" tend to treat the term the same way that pedantic English speakers might treat the expression "head over heels": recognizing what the speaker meant, and accepting it as just part of the local vernacular, even though it doesn't actually mean anything, when you think about it?
Answer: YES
Passage: Some sources state that "expresso" is an incorrect spelling, including "Garner's Modern American Usage". While the 'expresso' spelling is recognized as mainstream usage in some American dictionaries, some cooking websites call the 'x' variant illegitimate. Oxford Dictionaries online states "The spelling "expresso" is not used in the original Italian and is no longer considered strictly incorrect, due to its common usage." The "Oxford English Dictionary" and "Merriam-Webster" call it a variant spelling. The "Online Etymology Dictionary" calls "expresso" a variant of "espresso". The "Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style" (2000) describes the spelling "expresso" as "wrong", and specifies "espresso" as the only correct form. The third edition of Fowler's "Modern English Usage", published by the Oxford University Press in 1996, noted that the form "espresso" "has entirely driven out the variant "expresso" (which was presumably invented under the impression that it meant 'fast, express')".

Question: Would Italian speakers who hear "expresso" tend to treat the term the same way that pedantic English speakers might treat the expression "head over heels": recognizing what the speaker meant, and accepting it as just part of the local vernacular, even though it doesn't actually mean anything, when you think about it?
Answer: YES
Passage: Some sources state that "expresso" is an incorrect spelling, including "Garner's Modern American Usage". While the 'expresso' spelling is recognized as mainstream usage in some American dictionaries, some cooking websites call the 'x' variant illegitimate. Oxford Dictionaries online states "The spelling "expresso" is not technically considered a misspelling in Italian, since it can be thought of as a foreign term." The "Oxford English Dictionary" and "Merriam-Webster" call it a variant spelling. The "Online Etymology Dictionary" calls "expresso" a variant of "espresso". The "Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style" (2000) describes the spelling "expresso" as "wrong", and specifies "espresso" as the only correct form. The third edition of Fowler's "Modern English Usage", published by the Oxford University Press in 1996, noted that the form "espresso" "has entirely driven out the variant "expresso" (which was presumably invented under the impression that it meant 'fast, express')".

Question: Would Italian speakers who hear "expresso" tend to treat the term the same way that pedantic English speakers might treat the expression "head over heels": recognizing what the speaker meant, and accepting it as just part of the local vernacular, even though it doesn't actually mean anything, when you think about it?
Answer: YES
Passage: If the interaction energy is greater than kT, the attractive forces will prevail, and the colloidal particles will begin to clump together. This process is referred to generally as aggregation, but is also referred to as flocculation, coagulation or precipitation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, for some definitions they have slightly different meanings. For example, coagulation can be used to describe irreversible, permanent aggregation where the forces holding the particles together are stronger than any external forces caused by stirring or mixing. Flocculation can be used to describe reversible aggregation involving weaker attractive forces, and the aggregate is usually called a "floc". The term precipitation is normally reserved for describing a phase change from a colloid dispersion to a solid (precipitate) when it is subjected to a perturbation. Aggregation causes sedimentation or creaming, therefore the colloid is unstable: if either of these processes occur the colloid will no longer be a suspension.

Question: If the particles in an aggregation fall apart upon stirring, is the aggregation a coagulation?
Answer: NO

Question: If the goal of an experiment is to make an aggregate that irreversibly clumps together, is the goal to make a coagulation?
Answer: YES

Question: Could the particles in a coagulation be split back apart if one were to mix hard enough?
Answer: NO
Passage: If the interaction energy is greater than kT, the attractive forces will prevail, and the colloidal particles will begin to clump together. This process is referred to generally as aggregation, but is also referred to as flocculation, coagulation or precipitation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, for some definitions they have slightly different meanings. For example, coagulation can be used to describe lasting, permanent aggregation where the forces holding the particles together are stronger than any external forces caused by stirring or mixing. Flocculation can be used to describe reversible aggregation involving weaker attractive forces, and the aggregate is usually called a "floc". The term precipitation is normally reserved for describing a phase change from a colloid dispersion to a solid (precipitate) when it is subjected to a perturbation. Aggregation causes sedimentation or creaming, therefore the colloid is unstable: if either of these processes occur the colloid will no longer be a suspension.

Question: If the particles in an aggregation fall apart upon stirring, is the aggregation a coagulation?
Answer: NO

Question: If the goal of an experiment is to make an aggregate that irreversibly clumps together, is the goal to make a coagulation?
Answer: YES

Question: Could the particles in a coagulation be split back apart if one were to mix hard enough?
Answer: NO
Passage: If the interaction energy is greater than kT, the attractive forces will prevail, and the colloidal particles will begin to clump together. This process is referred to generally as aggregation, but is also referred to as flocculation, coagulation or precipitation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, for some definitions they have slightly different meanings. For example, coagulation can be used to describe nearly irreversible , permanent aggregation where the forces holding the particles together are usually stronger than any external forces caused by stirring or mixing. Flocculation can be used to describe reversible aggregation involving weaker attractive forces, and the aggregate is usually called a "floc". The term precipitation is normally reserved for describing a phase change from a colloid dispersion to a solid (precipitate) when it is subjected to a perturbation. Aggregation causes sedimentation or creaming, therefore the colloid is unstable: if either of these processes occur the colloid will no longer be a suspension.

Question: If the particles in an aggregation fall apart upon stirring, is the aggregation a coagulation?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: If the interaction energy is greater than kT, the attractive forces will prevail, and the colloidal particles will begin to clump together. This process is referred to generally as aggregation, but is also referred to as flocculation, coagulation or precipitation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, for some definitions they have slightly different meanings. For example, coagulation can be used to describe reversible , impermanent aggregation where the forces holding the particles together are weaker than any external forces caused by stirring or mixing. Flocculation can also be used to describe reversible aggregation involving weaker attractive forces, and the aggregate is usually called a "floc". The term precipitation is normally reserved for describing a phase change from a colloid dispersion to a solid (precipitate) when it is subjected to a perturbation. Aggregation causes sedimentation or creaming, therefore the colloid is unstable: if either of these processes occur the colloid will no longer be a suspension.

Question: If the particles in an aggregation fall apart upon stirring, is the aggregation a coagulation?
Answer: YES

Question: If the goal of an experiment is to make an aggregate that irreversibly clumps together, is the goal to make a coagulation?
Answer: NO

Question: Could the particles in a coagulation be split back apart if one were to mix hard enough?
Answer: YES
Passage: Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument in 1714 against mechanism (the position that the mind is a machine and nothing more). Leibniz used the thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. Leibniz found it difficult to imagine that a "mind" capable of "perception" could be constructed using only mechanical processes. In the 1961 short story "The Game" by Anatoly Dneprov, a stadium of people act as switches and memory cells implementing a program to translate a sentence of Portuguese, a language that none of them knows. In 1974, Lawrence Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in 1978 Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This thought experiment is called the China brain, also the "Chinese Nation" or the "Chinese Gym".

Question: In Neprov's 1961 story "The Game," would one of the fictional characters inside of the stadium be able to converse with a native resident of real-world Lisbon or Brasilia?
Answer: NO

Question: In the 1961 short story "The Game" by Anatoly Dneprov, would the inhabitants of the stadium be able to hold a conversation in their own native language with residents of the countries of Portugal or Brazil as they exist in the same fictional world?
Answer: NO

Question: In Dneprov's 1961 story "The Game", would one of the people inside the stadium be able to read an in-universe account of their work if it was titled "O Jogo" (with the content within matching the language of the title)?
Answer: NO