lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: One bank employee testified that Shakur was one of the bank robbers, but three other bank employees (including two tellers) testified that they were uncertain. The prosecution showed surveillance photos of four of the six alleged robbers, contending that one of them was Shakur wearing a wig. Shakur was forcibly subdued and photographed by the FBI on the judge's order, after having refused to cooperate, believing that the FBI would use photo manipulation; a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissible. In her autobiography, Shakur recounts being beaten, choked, and kicked on the courtroom floor by five marshals, as Williams narrated the events to ensure they would appear on the court record. Shortly after deliberation began, the jury asked to see all the photographic exhibits taken from the surveillance footage. The jury determined that a widely circulated FBI photo allegedly showing Shakur participating in the robbery was not her.

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the defense?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the jury for Shakur's trial likely deliberate a lot about the employee testimony?
Answer: YES

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the prosecution?
Answer: NO
Passage: One bank employee testified that Shakur was one of the bank robbers, but three other bank employees (including two tellers) testified that they lacked confidence. The prosecution showed surveillance photos of four of the six alleged robbers, contending that one of them was Shakur wearing a wig. Shakur was forcibly subdued and photographed by the FBI on the judge's order, after having refused to cooperate, believing that the FBI would use photo manipulation; a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissible. In her autobiography, Shakur recounts being beaten, choked, and kicked on the courtroom floor by five marshals, as Williams narrated the events to ensure they would appear on the court record. Shortly after deliberation began, the jury asked to see all the photographic exhibits taken from the surveillance footage. The jury determined that a widely circulated FBI photo allegedly showing Shakur participating in the robbery was not her.

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the defense?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the jury for Shakur's trial likely deliberate a lot about the employee testimony?
Answer: YES

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the prosecution?
Answer: NO
Passage: One bank employee testified that they were uncertain Shakur was one of the bank robbers, but three other bank employees (including two tellers) testified that they were certain. The prosecution showed surveillance photos of four of the six alleged robbers, contending that one of them was Shakur wearing a wig. Shakur was forcibly subdued and photographed by the FBI on the judge's order, after having refused to cooperate, believing that the FBI would use photo manipulation; a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissible. In her autobiography, Shakur recounts being beaten, choked, and kicked on the courtroom floor by five marshals, as Williams narrated the events to ensure they would appear on the court record. Shortly after deliberation began, the jury asked to see all the photographic exhibits taken from the surveillance footage. The jury determined that a widely circulated FBI photo allegedly showing Shakur participating in the robbery was not her.

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the defense?
Answer: NO

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the prosecution?
Answer: YES
Passage: One employee testified that Shakur was one of the bank robbers, and three other bank employees (including two tellers) also testified that they were certain. The prosecution showed surveillance photos of four of the six alleged robbers, contending that one of them was Shakur wearing a wig. Shakur was forcibly subdued and photographed by the FBI on the judge's order, after having refused to cooperate, believing that the FBI would use photo manipulation; a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissible. In her autobiography, Shakur recounts being beaten, choked, and kicked on the courtroom floor by five marshals, as Williams narrated the events to ensure they would appear on the court record. Shortly after deliberation began, the jury asked to see all the photographic exhibits taken from the surveillance footage. The jury determined that a widely circulated FBI photo allegedly showing Shakur participating in the robbery was not her.

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the defense?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the jury for Shakur's trial likely deliberate a lot about the employee testimony?
Answer: NO

Question: At the trial of Shakur, would the overall testimony of the employees help the prosecution?
Answer: YES
Passage: The New Guinea campaign opened with the battles for New Britain and New Ireland in the Territory of New Guinea in 1942. Rabaul, the capital of the Territory was overwhelmed on 22–23 January and was established as a major Japanese base from whence they landed on mainland New Guinea and advanced towards Port Moresby and Australia. Having had their initial effort to capture Port Moresby by a seaborne invasion disrupted by the U.S. Navy in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese attempted a landward invasion from the north via the Kokoda Trail. From July 1942, a few Australian reserve battalions, many of them very young and untrained, fought a stubborn rearguard action against a Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track, towards Port Moresby, over the rugged Owen Stanley Ranges. Local Papuans, called Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels by the Australians, assisted and escorted injured Australian troops down the Kokoda trail. The militia, worn out and severely depleted by casualties, were relieved in late August by regular troops from the Second Australian Imperial Force, returning from action in the Mediterranean theatre.

Question: Is it likely that military leaders in 1942 would have described the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track as an elite unit?
Answer: NO

Question: If the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track in 1942 were commanded to do a basic military drill, is it likely that they would fail to do it properly?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Australian military leaders likely have been shocked that the initial troops deployed to the Kokoda Track in 1942 were being defeated by the Japanese?
Answer: NO
Passage: The New Guinea campaign opened with the battles for New Britain and New Ireland in the Territory of New Guinea in 1942. Rabaul, the capital of the Territory was overwhelmed on 22–23 January and was established as a major Japanese base from whence they landed on mainland New Guinea and advanced towards Port Moresby and Australia. Having had their initial effort to capture Port Moresby by a seaborne invasion disrupted by the U.S. Navy in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese attempted a landward invasion from the north via the Kokoda Trail. From July 1942, a few Australian reserve battalions, many of them very young and green, fought a stubborn rearguard action against a Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track, towards Port Moresby, over the rugged Owen Stanley Ranges. Local Papuans, called Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels by the Australians, assisted and escorted injured Australian troops down the Kokoda trail. The militia, worn out and severely depleted by casualties, were relieved in late August by regular troops from the Second Australian Imperial Force, returning from action in the Mediterranean theatre.

Question: Is it likely that military leaders in 1942 would have described the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track as an elite unit?
Answer: NO

Question: If the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track in 1942 were commanded to do a basic military drill, is it likely that they would fail to do it properly?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Australian military leaders likely have been shocked that the initial troops deployed to the Kokoda Track in 1942 were being defeated by the Japanese?
Answer: NO
Passage: The New Guinea campaign opened with the battles for New Britain and New Ireland in the Territory of New Guinea in 1942. Rabaul, the capital of the Territory was overwhelmed on 22–23 January and was established as a major Japanese base from whence they landed on mainland New Guinea and advanced towards Port Moresby and Australia. Having had their initial effort to capture Port Moresby by a seaborne invasion disrupted by the U.S. Navy in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese attempted a landward invasion from the north via the Kokoda Trail. From July 1942, a few Australian reserve battalions, many of them very young but well trained, fought a stubborn rearguard action against an untrained Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track, towards Port Moresby, over the rugged Owen Stanley Ranges. Local Papuans, called Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels by the Australians, assisted and escorted injured Australian troops down the Kokoda trail. The militia, worn out and severely depleted by casualties, were relieved in late August by regular troops from the Second Australian Imperial Force, returning from action in the Mediterranean theatre.

Question: Is it likely that military leaders in 1942 would have described the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track as an elite unit?
Answer: YES

Question: If the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track in 1942 were commanded to do a basic military drill, is it likely that they would fail to do it properly?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Australian military leaders likely have been shocked that the initial troops deployed to the Kokoda Track in 1942 were being defeated by the Japanese?
Answer: YES
Passage: The New Guinea campaign opened with the battles for New Britain and New Ireland in the Territory of New Guinea in 1942. Rabaul, the capital of the Territory was overwhelmed on 22–23 January and was established as a major Japanese base from whence they landed on mainland New Guinea and advanced towards Port Moresby and Australia. Having had their initial effort to capture Port Moresby by a seaborne invasion disrupted by the U.S. Navy in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Japanese attempted a landward invasion from the north via the Kokoda Trail. From July 1942, a few Australian reserve battalions, many of them very young but well trained, fought a stubborn rearguard action against a Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track, towards Port Moresby, over the rugged Owen Stanley Ranges. Local Papuans, called Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels by the Australians, assisted and escorted injured Australian troops down the Kokoda trail. The militia, worn out and severely depleted by casualties, were relieved in late August by regular troops from the Second Australian Imperial Force, returning from action in the Mediterranean theatre.

Question: Is it likely that military leaders in 1942 would have described the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track as an elite unit?
Answer: YES

Question: If the initial Australian troops at the Kokoda Track in 1942 were commanded to do a basic military drill, is it likely that they would fail to do it properly?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Australian military leaders likely have been shocked that the initial troops deployed to the Kokoda Track in 1942 were being defeated by the Japanese?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: The "Propædia" and its "Outline of Knowledge" were produced by dozens of editorial advisors under the direction of Mortimer J. Adler. Roughly half of these advisors have since died, including some of the Outline's chief architects – Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001). The also lists just under 4,000 advisors who were consulted for the unsigned articles.

Question: Does it seem like there was a certain humility among the main authors of these articles, that would lead them to prefer to just be listed as a contributor equal to the other advisors?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it possible that some contributors were pulling strings politically to get their names listed as the main author on an article, when they may have just been one of many consultants who contributed?
Answer: NO
Passage: The "Propædia" and its "Outline of Knowledge" were produced by dozens of editorial advisors under the direction of Mortimer J. Adler. Roughly half of these advisors have since died, including some of the Outline's chief architects – Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001). 4,000 advisors were also listed for their consulting work on the articles that lacked signatures.

Question: Does it seem like there was a certain humility among the main authors of these articles, that would lead them to prefer to just be listed as a contributor equal to the other advisors?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it possible that some contributors were pulling strings politically to get their names listed as the main author on an article, when they may have just been one of many consultants who contributed?
Answer: NO
Passage: The "Propædia" and its "Outline of Knowledge" were produced by dozens of editorial advisors under the direction of Mortimer J. Adler. Roughly half of these advisors have since died, including some of the Outline's chief architects – Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001). It also lists just under 4,000 advisors who were consulted, but whose names were left unsigned on the articles with attributed authors.

Question: Does it seem like there was a certain humility among the main authors of these articles, that would lead them to prefer to just be listed as a contributor equal to the other advisors?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it possible that some contributors were pulling strings politically to get their names listed as the main author on an article, when they may have just been one of many consultants who contributed?
Answer: YES
Passage: The "Propædia" and its "Outline of Knowledge" were produced by dozens of editorial advisors under the direction of Mortimer J. Adler. Roughly half of these advisors have since died, including some of the Outline's chief architects – Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001). The also lists just under 4,000 advisors who were consulted for the articles with attributed authors.

Question: Is it possible that some contributors were pulling strings politically to get their names listed as the main author on an article, when they may have just been one of many consultants who contributed?
Answer: NO

Question: From what can be read in this passage, does it seem like a lot of contributors were unfairly denied due recognition at the time of the original publications?
Answer: NO
Passage: The German advance gained little ground on 27 February, after a thaw turned the ground into a swamp and the arrival of French reinforcements increased the effectiveness of the defence. Some German artillery became unserviceable and other batteries became stranded in the mud. German infantry began to suffer from exhaustion and unexpectedly high losses, being suffered in the fighting around Douaumont village. On 29 February, the German advance was contained at Douaumont by a heavy snowfall and the defence of French 33rd Infantry Regiment. Delays gave the French time to bring up and of ammunition from the railhead at Bar-le-Duc to Verdun. The swift German advance had gone beyond the range of artillery covering fire and the muddy conditions made it very difficult to move the artillery forward as planned. The German advance southwards brought it into range of French artillery west of the Meuse, whose fire caused more German infantry casualties than in the earlier fighting, when French infantry on the east bank had fewer guns in support.

Question: Regardless of mobility, does the passage suggest that bad weather conditions could negatively affect the firing capability of German artillery at this time?
Answer: YES

Question: If the German high command were determined to hold some people responsible for what had happened in the battle, would it be appropriate to assign blame to those responsible for transporting the batteries rather than to both the transport crews and the crews responsible for maintaining the guns?
Answer: NO
Passage: The German advance gained little ground on 27 February, after a thaw turned the ground into a swamp and the arrival of French reinforcements increased the effectiveness of the defence. Some of the German artillery pieces became unusable, while others were inextricably stuck in the deep mud. German infantry began to suffer from exhaustion and unexpectedly high losses, being suffered in the fighting around Douaumont village. On 29 February, the German advance was contained at Douaumont by a heavy snowfall and the defence of French 33rd Infantry Regiment. Delays gave the French time to bring up and of ammunition from the railhead at Bar-le-Duc to Verdun. The swift German advance had gone beyond the range of artillery covering fire and the muddy conditions made it very difficult to move the artillery forward as planned. The German advance southwards brought it into range of French artillery west of the Meuse, whose fire caused more German infantry casualties than in the earlier fighting, when French infantry on the east bank had fewer guns in support.

Question: Regardless of mobility, does the passage suggest that bad weather conditions could negatively affect the firing capability of German artillery at this time?
Answer: YES

Question: If the German high command were determined to hold some people responsible for what had happened in the battle, would it be appropriate to assign blame to those responsible for transporting the batteries rather than to both the transport crews and the crews responsible for maintaining the guns?
Answer: NO
Passage: The German advance gained little ground on 27 February, after a thaw turned the ground into a swamp and the arrival of French reinforcements increased the effectiveness of the defence. Some German artillery batteries became stranded in the mud, which made them effectively unserviceable, yet other guns in similar condition were able to be moved, to where they could provide some fire support. German infantry began to suffer from exhaustion and unexpectedly high losses, being suffered in the fighting around Douaumont village. On 29 February, the German advance was contained at Douaumont by a heavy snowfall and the defence of French 33rd Infantry Regiment. Delays gave the French time to bring up and of ammunition from the railhead at Bar-le-Duc to Verdun. The swift German advance had gone beyond the range of artillery covering fire and the muddy conditions made it very difficult to move the artillery forward as planned. The German advance southwards brought it into range of French artillery west of the Meuse, whose fire caused more German infantry casualties than in the earlier fighting, when French infantry on the east bank had fewer guns in support.

Question: If more modern technology had been available, such as tracked vehicles or even helicopters, that could carry the German artillery across the muddy field, would all (or nearly all) of the batteries still have been able to be used in combat?
Answer: YES

Question: If the German high command were determined to hold some people responsible for what had happened in the battle, would it be appropriate to assign blame to those responsible for transporting the batteries rather than to both the transport crews and the crews responsible for maintaining the guns?
Answer: YES
Passage: The German advance gained little ground on 27 February, after a thaw turned the ground into a swamp and the arrival of French reinforcements increased the effectiveness of the defence. Some German artillery batteries became stranded in the mud, even though they could still be fired, and only a few pieces were able to be moved into combat range. German infantry began to suffer from exhaustion and unexpectedly high losses, being suffered in the fighting around Douaumont village. On 29 February, the German advance was contained at Douaumont by a heavy snowfall and the defence of French 33rd Infantry Regiment. Delays gave the French time to bring up and of ammunition from the railhead at Bar-le-Duc to Verdun. The swift German advance had gone beyond the range of artillery covering fire and the muddy conditions made it very difficult to move the artillery forward as planned. The German advance southwards brought it into range of French artillery west of the Meuse, whose fire caused more German infantry casualties than in the earlier fighting, when French infantry on the east bank had fewer guns in support.

Question: If more modern technology had been available, such as tracked vehicles or even helicopters, that could carry the German artillery across the muddy field, would all (or nearly all) of the batteries still have been able to be used in combat?
Answer: YES

Question: Regardless of mobility, does the passage suggest that bad weather conditions could negatively affect the firing capability of German artillery at this time?
Answer: NO

Question: If the German high command were determined to hold some people responsible for what had happened in the battle, would it be appropriate to assign blame to those responsible for transporting the batteries rather than to both the transport crews and the crews responsible for maintaining the guns?
Answer: YES
Passage: Oelph gives a brief, personal epilogue for both stories. The three conspirators who attempted to kill Vosill died of various diseases, only Adlain lasting longer than a few years. King Quience reigned for forty years before his death, and was succeeded by one of his many daughters, giving the kingdom its first ruling Queen. Vosill disappeared from the ship she departed on; her disappearance was only discovered after a sudden burst of wind and chain-fire struck the ship, then vanished as quickly. Attempts to notify Vosill's family in Drezen were unsuccessful: nobody in the island country could be found who had ever met her. Oelph himself became a doctor, eventually taking Vosill's post as the royal physician. Tassasen endured a civil war after the death of Protector UrLeyn; eventually King Lattens took control of the Empire, ruling it quietly.

Question: Although this passage has the feel of a legend, and possibly even a ghost story, if we assume that it is about real historical figures, and a diary was found from this nation that alleged to be that of a local dignitary who writes all about his friendship with Vosill.  Would a reader reasonably conclude that such an artifact was likely a fake?
Answer: YES