lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: Derivatives allow risk related to the price of the underlying asset to be transferred from one party to another. For example, a wheat farmer and a miller could sign a futures contract to exchange a specified amount of cash for a specified amount of wheat in the future. Both parties have reduced a future risk: for the wheat farmer, the lack of assurance of the price, and for the miller, the availability of wheat. However, there is still the risk that no wheat will be available because of events unspecified by the contract, such as the weather, or that one party will renege on the contract. Although a third party, called a clearing house, insures a futures contract, not all derivatives are insured against counter-party risk.

Question: Did the farmers reduce an advantage?
Answer: NO

Question: Are the farmers more sure about the price of the wheat ?
Answer: YES

Question: Will there be wheat available ?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Derivatives allow risk related to the price of the underlying asset to be transferred from one party to another. For example, a wheat farmer and a miller could sign a futures contract to exchange a specified amount of cash for a specified amount of wheat in the future. Both parties have reduced a future risk: for the wheat farmer, the uncertainty of the quality of the wheat, and for the miller, the availability of wheat. However, there is still the risk that no wheat will be available because of events unspecified by the contract, such as the weather, or that one party will renege on the contract. Although a third party, called a clearing house, insures a futures contract, not all derivatives are insured against counter-party risk.

Question: Did the farmers reduce an advantage?
Answer: NO

Question: Are the farmers more sure about the price of the wheat ?
Answer: NO

Question: Will there be wheat available ?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Derivatives allow risk related to the price of the underlying asset to be transferred from one party to another. For example, a wheat farmer and a miller could sign a futures contract to exchange a specified amount of cash for a specified amount of wheat in the future. Both parties have reduced a future advantage: for the wheat farmer, the security of the price, and for the miller, the availability of wheat. However, there is still the risk that no wheat will be available because of events unspecified by the contract, such as the weather, or that one party will renege on the contract. Although a third party, called a clearing house, insures a futures contract, not all derivatives are insured against counter-party risk.

Question: Did the farmers reduce an advantage?
Answer: YES

Question: Are the farmers more sure about the price of the wheat ?
Answer: NO

Question: Will there be wheat available ?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: "Lunokhod 2" continues to be detected by lunar laser ranging experiments and its position is known to sub-metre accuracy. Ownership of "Lunokhod 2" and the "Luna 21" lander was sold by the Lavochkin Association for in December 1993 at a Sotheby's auction in New York (although the catalogue incorrectly lists lot 68A as "Luna 17/Lunokhod 1"). The buyer was computer gaming entrepreneur and astronaut's son Richard Garriott, who is also known by the name of his gaming character Lord British. Garriott stated in a 2001 interview: "I purchased "Lunakod 21" from the Russians. I am now the world's only private owner of an object on a foreign celestial body. Though there are international treaties that say no government shall lay claim to geography off planet earth, I am not a government. Summarily, I claim the Moon in the name of Lord British!" In 2007, Garriott said he is still the owner of "Lunokhod 2".

Question: Does the buyer claim to be working for a government?
Answer: NO

Question: Does the buyer think he has a right to claim the extraterrestrial land?
Answer: YES
Passage: "Lunokhod 2" continues to be detected by lunar laser ranging experiments and its position is known to sub-metre accuracy. Ownership of "Lunokhod 2" and the "Luna 21" lander was sold by the Lavochkin Association for in December 1993 at a Sotheby's auction in New York (although the catalogue incorrectly lists lot 68A as "Luna 17/Lunokhod 1"). The buyer was computer gaming entrepreneur and astronaut's son Richard Garriott, who is also known by the name of his gaming character Lord British. Garriott stated in a 2001 interview: "I purchased "Lunakod 21" from the Russians. I am now the world's only private owner of an object on a foreign celestial body. Though there are international treaties that say no government shall lay claim to geography off planet earth, I am on my own. Summarily, I claim the Moon in the name of Lord British!" In 2007, Garriott said he is still the owner of "Lunokhod 2".

Question: Does the buyer claim to be working for a government?
Answer: NO

Question: Does the buyer think he has a right to claim the extraterrestrial land?
Answer: YES
Passage: "Lunokhod 2" continues to be detected by lunar laser ranging experiments and its position is known to sub-metre accuracy. Ownership of "Lunokhod 2" and the "Luna 21" lander was sold by the Lavochkin Association for in December 1993 at a Sotheby's auction in New York (although the catalogue incorrectly lists lot 68A as "Luna 17/Lunokhod 1"). The buyer was computer gaming entrepreneur and astronaut's son Richard Garriott, who is also known by the name of his gaming character Lord British. Garriott stated in a 2001 interview: "I purchased "Lunakod 21" from the Russians. I am now the world's only private owner of an object on a foreign celestial body. Though there are international treaties that say no government shall lay claim to geography off planet earth, I am not that kind of government. Summarily, I claim the Moon in the name of Lord British!" In 2007, Garriott said he is still the owner of "Lunokhod 2".

Question: Does the buyer claim to be working for a government?
Answer: YES

Question: Does the buyer think he has a right to claim the extraterrestrial land?
Answer: YES
Passage: "Lunokhod 2" continues to be detected by lunar laser ranging experiments and its position is known to sub-metre accuracy. Ownership of "Lunokhod 2" and the "Luna 21" lander was sold by the Lavochkin Association for in December 1993 at a Sotheby's auction in New York (although the catalogue incorrectly lists lot 68A as "Luna 17/Lunokhod 1"). The buyer was computer gaming entrepreneur and astronaut's son Richard Garriott, who is also known by the name of his gaming character Lord British. Garriott stated in a 2001 interview: "I purchased "Lunakod 21" from the Russians. I am now the world's only private owner of an object on a foreign celestial body. Though there are international treaties that say no government shall lay claim to geography off planet earth, I am working for the government. Summarily, I claim the Moon in the name of Lord British!" In 2007, Garriott said he is still the owner of "Lunokhod 2".

Question: Does the buyer claim to be working for a government?
Answer: YES
Passage: Recovery of lost territories began in the mid-17th century, when the Khmelnitsky Uprising (1648–57) in Ukraine against Polish rule brought about the Treaty of Pereyaslav, concluded between Russia and the Ukrainian Cossacks. According to the treaty, Russia granted protection to the Cossacks state in Left-bank Ukraine, formerly under Polish control. This triggered a prolonged Russo-Polish War (1654-1667), which ended with the Treaty of Andrusovo, where Poland accepted the loss of Left-bank Ukraine, Kiev and Smolensk.

Question: Who was in control of Smolensk in 1668?
Answer: Russia

Question: In 1668 in Smolensk, would you see Russian flags on government buildings?
Answer: YES

Question: Who was in control of Kiev in 1668?
Answer: Russia
Passage: Recovery of lost territories began in the mid-17th century, when the Khmelnitsky Uprising (1648–57) in Ukraine against Polish rule brought about the Treaty of Pereyaslav, concluded between Russia and the Ukrainian Cossacks. According to the treaty, Russia granted protection to the Cossacks state in Left-bank Ukraine, formerly under Polish control. This triggered a prolonged Russo-Polish War (1654-1667), which ended with the Treaty of Andrusovo, where Poland gave Left-bank Ukraine, Kiev and Smolensk to Russia.

Question: Who was in control of Smolensk in 1668?
Answer: Russia

Question: In 1668 in Smolensk, would you see Russian flags on government buildings?
Answer: YES

Question: Who was in control of Kiev in 1668?
Answer: Russia
Passage: Recovery of lost territories began in the mid-17th century, when the Khmelnitsky Uprising (1648–57) in Ukraine against Polish rule brought about the Treaty of Pereyaslav, concluded between Russia and the Ukrainian Cossacks. According to the treaty, Russia granted protection to the Cossacks state in Left-bank Ukraine, formerly under Polish control. This triggered a prolonged Russo-Polish War (1654-1667), which ended with the Treaty of Andrusovo, where Poland accepted the loss of Left-bank Ukraine and Kiev.

Question: Who was in control of Smolensk in 1668?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Who was in control of Kiev in 1668?
Answer: Russia
Passage: Recovery of lost territories began in the mid-17th century, when the Khmelnitsky Uprising (1648–57) in Ukraine against Polish rule brought about the Treaty of Pereyaslav, concluded between Russia and the Ukrainian Cossacks. According to the treaty, Russia granted protection to the Cossacks state in Left-bank Ukraine, formerly under Polish control. This triggered a prolonged Russo-Polish War (1654-1667), which ended with the Treaty of Andrusovo, where Poland received Left-bank Ukraine, Kiev and Smolensk.

Question: Who was in control of Smolensk in 1668?
Answer: Poland

Question: In 1668 in Smolensk, would you see Russian flags on government buildings?
Answer: NO

Question: Who was in control of Kiev in 1668?
Answer: Poland
Passage: On 2 August, Napoleon and the Prince Imperial accompanied the army as it made a tentative crossing of the German border toward the city of Saarbrücken. The French won a minor skirmish and advanced no further. Napoleon III, very ill, was unable to ride his horse and had to support himself by leaning against a tree. In the meantime, the Germans had assembled a much larger army opposite Alsace and Lorraine than the French had expected or were aware of. On 4 August 1870, the Germans attacked with overwhelming force against a French division in Alsace at the Battle of Wissembourg (German: Weissenburg), forcing it to retreat. On 5 August, the Germans defeated another French Army at the Battle of Spicheren in Lorraine.

Question: Is it likely that Napoleon III could have led his army into battle?
Answer: NO

Question: If Napoleon III needed to travel, would he probably have ridden in a horse-drawn vehicle?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Napoleon III probably have had difficulty surveying the entirety of his army's camp?
Answer: YES
Passage: On 2 August, Napoleon and the Prince Imperial accompanied the army as it made a tentative crossing of the German border toward the city of Saarbrücken. The French won a minor skirmish and advanced no further. Napoleon III, very ill, was incapable of riding his horse and had to support himself by leaning against a tree. In the meantime, the Germans had assembled a much larger army opposite Alsace and Lorraine than the French had expected or were aware of. On 4 August 1870, the Germans attacked with overwhelming force against a French division in Alsace at the Battle of Wissembourg (German: Weissenburg), forcing it to retreat. On 5 August, the Germans defeated another French Army at the Battle of Spicheren in Lorraine.

Question: Is it likely that Napoleon III could have led his army into battle?
Answer: NO

Question: If Napoleon III needed to travel, would he probably have ridden in a horse-drawn vehicle?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Napoleon III probably have had difficulty surveying the entirety of his army's camp?
Answer: YES
Passage: On 2 August, Napoleon and the Prince Imperial accompanied the army as it made a tentative crossing of the German border toward the city of Saarbrücken. The French won a minor skirmish and advanced no further. Napoleon III, very ill, could ride his horse but was unable to support himself even by leaning against a tree. In the meantime, the Germans had assembled a much larger army opposite Alsace and Lorraine than the French had expected or were aware of. On 4 August 1870, the Germans attacked with overwhelming force against a French division in Alsace at the Battle of Wissembourg (German: Weissenburg), forcing it to retreat. On 5 August, the Germans defeated another French Army at the Battle of Spicheren in Lorraine.

Question: Is it likely that Napoleon III could have led his army into battle?
Answer: NO

Question: If Napoleon III needed to travel, would he probably have ridden in a horse-drawn vehicle?
Answer: NO
Passage: On 2 August, Napoleon and the Prince Imperial accompanied the army as it made a tentative crossing of the German border toward the city of Saarbrücken. The French won a minor skirmish and advanced no further. Napoleon III, not very ill, was able to ride his horse and no longer had to support himself by leaning against a tree. In the meantime, the Germans had assembled a much larger army opposite Alsace and Lorraine than the French had expected or were aware of. On 4 August 1870, the Germans attacked with overwhelming force against a French division in Alsace at the Battle of Wissembourg (German: Weissenburg), forcing it to retreat. On 5 August, the Germans defeated another French Army at the Battle of Spicheren in Lorraine.

Question: Is it likely that Napoleon III could have led his army into battle?
Answer: YES

Question: If Napoleon III needed to travel, would he probably have ridden in a horse-drawn vehicle?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Napoleon III probably have had difficulty surveying the entirety of his army's camp?
Answer: NO
Passage: The Forester was available in Europe from 2008 with either the 2.0-liter EJ20 () 196 Nm petrol engine with Active Valve Control System (AVCS) matched to either five-speed manual or four-speed automatic gearbox, or an all-new diesel-powered horizontally opposed Subaru EE boxer engine, and six-speed manual gearbox. The new model was introduced at the 2008 Paris Motor Show in October. The diesel engine produces a power output of and 350 Nm. The EE20 diesel engine in the Euro 4 guise was plagued by crankshaft failure caused by cracks forming when operated in cold climate. Although Subaru never acknowledged this defect, the engine was reworked for the Euro 5 model in 2011 to eliminate this issue.

Question: Would a Euro 5 likely have crankshaft issues if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: NO

Question: Would you likely be able to find news reports of Subaru talking about engine issues with the Euro 4?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a Euro 5 be less likely to break down than a Euro 4 if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Forester was available in Europe from 2008 with either the 2.0-liter EJ20 () 196 Nm petrol engine with Active Valve Control System (AVCS) matched to either five-speed manual or four-speed automatic gearbox, or an all-new diesel-powered horizontally opposed Subaru EE boxer engine, and six-speed manual gearbox. The new model was introduced at the 2008 Paris Motor Show in October. The diesel engine produces a power output of and 350 Nm. The EE20 diesel engine in the Euro 4 guise was plagued by crankshaft failure caused by cracks forming when operated in cold climate. Although Subaru declined to acknowledge this defect, the engine was reworked for the Euro 5 model in 2011 to eliminate this issue.

Question: Would a Euro 5 likely have crankshaft issues if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: NO

Question: Would you likely be able to find news reports of Subaru talking about engine issues with the Euro 4?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a Euro 5 be less likely to break down than a Euro 4 if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Forester was available in Europe from 2008 with either the 2.0-liter EJ20 () 196 Nm petrol engine with Active Valve Control System (AVCS) matched to either five-speed manual or four-speed automatic gearbox, or an all-new diesel-powered horizontally opposed Subaru EE boxer engine, and six-speed manual gearbox. The new model was introduced at the 2008 Paris Motor Show in October. The diesel engine produces a power output of and 350 Nm. The EE20 diesel engine in the Euro 4 guise was plagued by crankshaft failure caused by cracks forming when operated in cold climate. Although Subaru acknowledged this defect, the engine was never reworked for the Euro 5 model in 2011 to eliminate this issue.

Question: Would a Euro 5 likely have crankshaft issues if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: YES

Question: Would you likely be able to find news reports of Subaru talking about engine issues with the Euro 4?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a Euro 5 be less likely to break down than a Euro 4 if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: NO
Passage: The Forester was available in Europe from 2008 with either the 2.0-liter EJ20 () 196 Nm petrol engine with Active Valve Control System (AVCS) matched to either five-speed manual or four-speed automatic gearbox, or an all-new diesel-powered horizontally opposed Subaru EE boxer engine, and six-speed manual gearbox. The new model was introduced at the 2008 Paris Motor Show in October. The diesel engine produces a power output of and 350 Nm. The EE20 diesel engine in the Euro 4 guise was plagued by crankshaft failure caused by cracks forming when operated in cold climate. Subaru acknowledged this defect, and the engine was reworked for the Euro 5 model in 2011 to eliminate this issue.

Question: Would a Euro 5 likely have crankshaft issues if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: NO

Question: Would you likely be able to find news reports of Subaru talking about engine issues with the Euro 4?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a Euro 5 be less likely to break down than a Euro 4 if driven regularly in Canada during winter?
Answer: YES
Passage: The Ottoman sent yet another expeditionary force to Zabid in 1547 CE while Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya Sharaf ad-Din was ruling the highlands independently. Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya chose his son Ali to succeed him, a decision that infuriated his other son al-Mutahhar ibn Yahya. Al-Mutahhar was lame and therefore not qualified for the Imamate. He urged Oais Pasha, the Ottoman colonial governor in Zabid, to attack his father. Indeed, Ottoman troops supported by tribal forces loyal to Imam al-Mutahhar stormed Ta'izz and marched north toward Sana'a in August 1547. The Turks officially made Imam al-Mutahhar a Sanjak-bey with authority over 'Amran. Imam al-Mutahhar assassinated the Ottoman colonial governor and recaptured Sana'a but the Ottomans led by Özdemir Pasha, forced al-Mutahhar to retreat to his fortress in Thula. Özdemir Pasha effectively put Yemen under Ottoman rule between 1552 and 1560, he garrisoned the main cities. built new fortresses and rendered secure the main routes. Özdemir died in Sana'a in 1561 to be succeeded by Mahmud Pasha.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if Al-Mutawakkil Yahya had no other children besides Al-Mutahhar, would the latter have become Imam in his father's footsteps?
Answer: NO

Question: Could Al-Mutawakkil Yahya honestly have argued to his bereaved son that he was simply following the rules when appointing Ali to be Imam?
Answer: YES

Question: Regardless of the choice that Al-Mutawakkil Yahya made (and whether or not it was legitimate for other reasons) could you say that the Ottomans in this time period had a relatively progressive attitude toward disability, likely believing that it was one's mind and one's heart that determined whether they could take their place in line to be Imam, not one's body?
Answer: NO
Passage: The Ottoman sent yet another expeditionary force to Zabid in 1547 ;CE while Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya Sharaf ad-Din was ruling the highlands independently. Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya chose his son Ali to succeed him, a decision that infuriated his other son al-Mutahhar ibn Yahya. Due to an injury that rendered him lame, al-Mutahhar was ineligible to become Imam. He urged Oais Pasha, the Ottoman colonial governor in Zabid, to attack his father. Indeed, Ottoman troops supported by tribal forces loyal to Imam al-Mutahhar stormed Ta'izz and marched north toward Sana'a in August 1547. The Turks officially made Imam al-Mutahhar a Sanjak-bey with authority over 'Amran. Imam al-Mutahhar assassinated the Ottoman colonial governor and recaptured Sana'a but the Ottomans led by Özdemir Pasha, forced al-Mutahhar to retreat to his fortress in Thula. Özdemir Pasha effectively put Yemen under Ottoman rule between 1552 and 1560, he garrisoned the main cities. built new fortresses and rendered secure the main routes. Özdemir died in Sana'a in 1561 to be succeeded by Mahmud Pasha.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if Al-Mutawakkil Yahya had no other children besides Al-Mutahhar, would the latter have become Imam in his father's footsteps?
Answer: NO

Question: Could Al-Mutawakkil Yahya honestly have argued to his bereaved son that he was simply following the rules when appointing Ali to be Imam?
Answer: YES

Question: Regardless of the choice that Al-Mutawakkil Yahya made (and whether or not it was legitimate for other reasons) could you say that the Ottomans in this time period had a relatively progressive attitude toward disability, likely believing that it was one's mind and one's heart that determined whether they could take their place in line to be Imam, not one's body?
Answer: NO
Passage: The Ottoman sent yet another expeditionary force to Zabid in 1547 ;CE while Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya Sharaf ad-Din was ruling the highlands independently. Imam al-Mutawakkil Yahya chose his son Ali to succeed him, a decision that infuriated his other son al-Mutahhar ibn Yahya. Al-Mutahhar was lame and claimed that he was unfairly viewed to not be qualified for the Imamate, yet his father was strictly following the line of succession. He urged Oais Pasha, the Ottoman colonial governor in Zabid, to attack his father. Indeed, Ottoman troops supported by tribal forces loyal to Imam al-Mutahhar stormed Ta'izz and marched north toward Sana'a in August 1547. The Turks officially made Imam al-Mutahhar a Sanjak-bey with authority over 'Amran. Imam al-Mutahhar assassinated the Ottoman colonial governor and recaptured Sana'a but the Ottomans led by Özdemir Pasha, forced al-Mutahhar to retreat to his fortress in Thula. Özdemir Pasha effectively put Yemen under Ottoman rule between 1552 and 1560, he garrisoned the main cities. built new fortresses and rendered secure the main routes. Özdemir died in Sana'a in 1561 to be succeeded by Mahmud Pasha.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if Al-Mutawakkil Yahya had no other children besides Al-Mutahhar, would the latter have become Imam in his father's footsteps?
Answer: YES