lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: At the school, other students allegedly raped Manson with the encouragement of a staff member, and he was repeatedly beaten. He ran away from the school eighteen times. While at the school, Manson developed a self-defense technique he later called the "insane game". When he was physically unable to defend himself, he would screech, grimace and wave his arms to convince aggressors that he was insane. After a number of failed attempts, he escaped with two other boys in February ;1951. The three escapees were robbing filling stations while attempting to drive to California in stolen cars when they were arrested in Utah. For the federal crime of driving a stolen car across state lines, Manson was sent to Washington, D.C.'s National Training School for Boys. On arrival he was given a series of aptitude tests in various subjects (including reading comprehension, writing, and math) which revealed his above average IQ of 109. His case worker deemed him aggressively antisocial.

Question: Before Manson stole his first car, is it possible that he could have taught himself the basics of driving by reading a DMV guidebook?
Answer: YES

Question: Does the passage suggest that most, if not all, of the knowledge that Manson had acquired at a young age came from audio and visual sources, such as conversations with others, or television programs?
Answer: NO

Question: It is well known that Charles Manson fancied himself as a musician and song writer, so if an antiques dealer offered a sheet of lyrics that were said to be written in Manson's own hand, from his childhood in the late 1940s, would you have to dismiss that artifact as a fake based on what you have learned here?
Answer: NO
Passage: Despite the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi provisions for sale of land, the Māori Land Court decided that all land not cultivated by Māori was 'waste land' and belonged to the Crown without purchase. Most provinces in colonial New Zealand had Waste Lands Acts enacted between 1854 and 1877. The 1874 Waste Lands Act in Auckland Province used the term Homestead, with allocation administered by a Crown Lands Board. There was similar legislation in Westland. It gave up to, with settlers just paying the cost of a survey. They had to live there for five years, build a house and cultivate a third of the land, if already open, or a fifth if bush had to be cleared. The land was forfeited if they didn't clear enough bush. Further amendments were made in 1877, 1882 and 1885, adding details such as pastoral and perpetual leases and village and special settlements. This contributed to rapid deforestation.

Question: Does the Crown's designation of "Waste Land" sound hypocritical, since they were encouraging farming and settlement, while simultaneously trying to preserve most of the natural bushland?
Answer: NO

Question: If a fire were to pass through a parcel of land right after a settler had taken control of it, and swept away nearly all of the bush, would the farmer consider this to be a good or a bad thing?
Answer: good

Question: If a farmer had planted exactly as much as his family could reasonably cultivate on his parcel of land, but also chose to clear away extra bush and leave the ground bare, would this be considered a wise precaution against government bureaucrats?
Answer: YES
Passage: Despite the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi provisions for sale of land, the Māori Land Court decided that all land not cultivated by Māori was 'waste land' and belonged to the Crown without purchase. Most provinces in colonial New Zealand had Waste Lands Acts enacted between 1854 and 1877. The 1874 Waste Lands Act in Auckland Province used the term Homestead, with allocation administered by a Crown Lands Board. There was similar legislation in Westland. It gave up to, with settlers just paying the cost of a survey. They had to live there for five years, build a house and cultivate a third of the land, if already open, or a fifth if bush had to be cleared. The land would be taken away from the settlers if they failed to clear out a sufficient amount of the bush. Further amendments were made in 1877, 1882 and 1885, adding details such as pastoral and perpetual leases and village and special settlements. This contributed to rapid deforestation.

Question: Does the Crown's designation of "Waste Land" sound hypocritical, since they were encouraging farming and settlement, while simultaneously trying to preserve most of the natural bushland?
Answer: NO

Question: If a fire were to pass through a parcel of land right after a settler had taken control of it, and swept away nearly all of the bush, would the farmer consider this to be a good or a bad thing?
Answer: good

Question: If a farmer had planted exactly as much as his family could reasonably cultivate on his parcel of land, but also chose to clear away extra bush and leave the ground bare, would this be considered a wise precaution against government bureaucrats?
Answer: YES
Passage: Despite the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi provisions for sale of land, the Māori Land Court decided that all land not cultivated by Māori was 'waste land' and belonged to the Crown without purchase. Most provinces in colonial New Zealand had Waste Lands Acts enacted between 1854 and 1877. The 1874 Waste Lands Act in Auckland Province used the term Homestead, with allocation administered by a Crown Lands Board. There was similar legislation in Westland. It gave up to, with settlers just paying the cost of a survey. They had to live there for five years, build a house and cultivate a third of the land, if already open, or a fifth if bush had to be cleared. While the land could technically be forfeited for non-compliance, the Crown didn't make any attempt to enforce the clearing of bush. Further amendments were made in 1877, 1882 and 1885, adding details such as pastoral and perpetual leases and village and special settlements. This contributed to rapid deforestation.

Question: Does the Crown's designation of "Waste Land" sound hypocritical, since they were encouraging farming and settlement, while simultaneously trying to preserve most of the natural bushland?
Answer: NO

Question: If a farmer had planted exactly as much as his family could reasonably cultivate on his parcel of land, but also chose to clear away extra bush and leave the ground bare, would this be considered a wise precaution against government bureaucrats?
Answer: NO
Passage: Despite the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi provisions for sale of land, the Māori Land Court decided that all land not cultivated by Māori was 'waste land' and belonged to the Crown without purchase. Most provinces in colonial New Zealand had Waste Lands Acts enacted between 1854 and 1877. The 1874 Waste Lands Act in Auckland Province used the term Homestead, with allocation administered by a Crown Lands Board. There was similar legislation in Westland. It gave up to, with settlers just paying the cost of a survey. They had to live there for five years, build a house and cultivate a third of the land, if already open, or a fifth if bush had to be cleared. The land would be forfeited, however, if the settlers cleared away too much of the bush. Further amendments were made in 1877, 1882 and 1885, adding details such as pastoral and perpetual leases and village and special settlements. This contributed to rapid deforestation.

Question: Does the Crown's designation of "Waste Land" sound hypocritical, since they were encouraging farming and settlement, while simultaneously trying to preserve most of the natural bushland?
Answer: YES

Question: If a farmer had planted exactly as much as his family could reasonably cultivate on his parcel of land, but also chose to clear away extra bush and leave the ground bare, would this be considered a wise precaution against government bureaucrats?
Answer: NO
Passage: After the war and the end of the incarceration program, returning Japanese Americans were often unable to find housing and so 234 families temporarily lived at the former assembly center. Camp Kohler was destroyed by a fire in December 1947, and the assembly center site is now part of the Foothill Farms-North Highlands subdivision.

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely have a permanent home?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 possibly be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: YES
Passage: After the war and the end of the incarceration program, returning Japanese Americans were frequently could not secure housing and so 234 families temporarily lived at the former assembly center. Camp Kohler was destroyed by a fire in December 1947, and the assembly center site is now part of the Foothill Farms-North Highlands subdivision.

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely have a permanent home?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 possibly be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: YES
Passage: After the war and the end of the incarceration program, returning Japanese Americans were often looking for housing, but families were unable to stay at the former assembly center. Camp Kohler was destroyed by a fire in December 1947, and the assembly center site is now part of the Foothill Farms-North Highlands subdivision.

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely have a permanent home?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 possibly be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: NO
Passage: After the war and the end of the incarceration program, returning Japanese Americans generally found housing easily, but 234 families temporarily lived at the former assembly center. Camp Kohler was destroyed by a fire in December 1947, and the assembly center site is now part of the Foothill Farms-North Highlands subdivision.

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely have a permanent home?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 likely be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a formerly incarcerated Japanese family in 1946 possibly be found at a former assembly center?
Answer: YES
Passage: A third view, presented in a number of recent evaluations, is that Jutland, the last major fleet action between battleships, illustrated the irrelevance of battleship fleets following the development of the submarine, mine and torpedo. In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare. Although large numbers of battleships were constructed in the decades between the wars, it has been argued that this outcome reflected the social dominance among naval decision-makers of battleship advocates who constrained technological choices to fit traditional paradigms of fleet action. Battleships played a relatively minor role in World War II, in which the submarine and aircraft carrier emerged as the dominant offensive weapons of naval warfare.

Question: Does this passage make it sound like the submarine, though revolutionary, required a certain amount of support from surface ships, given the way Germany chose to use U-boats following the loss at Jutland?
Answer: NO

Question: Does it sound like German U-Boat commanders had more freedom in making decisions, and correspondingly more accountability for their actions, in the aftermath of the Battle of Jutland?
Answer: YES
Passage: A third view, presented in a number of recent evaluations, is that Jutland, the last major fleet action between battleships, illustrated the irrelevance of battleship fleets following the development of the submarine, mine and torpedo. Historians who subscribe to this viewpoint argue that the key takeaway of the Battle of Jutland was Germany's decision to use submarines in war without any restrictions. Although large numbers of battleships were constructed in the decades between the wars, it has been argued that this outcome reflected the social dominance among naval decision-makers of battleship advocates who constrained technological choices to fit traditional paradigms of fleet action. Battleships played a relatively minor role in World War II, in which the submarine and aircraft carrier emerged as the dominant offensive weapons of naval warfare.

Question: Does this passage make it sound like the submarine, though revolutionary, required a certain amount of support from surface ships, given the way Germany chose to use U-boats following the loss at Jutland?
Answer: NO

Question: Does it sound like German U-Boat commanders had more freedom in making decisions, and correspondingly more accountability for their actions, in the aftermath of the Battle of Jutland?
Answer: YES
Passage: A third view, presented in a number of recent evaluations, is that Jutland, the last major fleet action between battleships, illustrated the irrelevance of battleship fleets following the development of the submarine, mine and torpedo. In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to curtail her use of submarines for the remainder of the war, whereas U-boat combat had until that point been unrestricted. Although large numbers of battleships were constructed in the decades between the wars, it has been argued that this outcome reflected the social dominance among naval decision-makers of battleship advocates who constrained technological choices to fit traditional paradigms of fleet action. Battleships played a relatively minor role in World War II, in which the submarine and aircraft carrier emerged as the dominant offensive weapons of naval warfare.

Question: Does it sound like German U-Boat commanders had more freedom in making decisions, and correspondingly more accountability for their actions, in the aftermath of the Battle of Jutland?
Answer: NO
Passage: A third view, presented in a number of recent evaluations, is that Jutland, the last major fleet action between battleships, illustrated the irrelevance of battleship fleets following the development of the submarine, mine and torpedo. In this view, the most important consequence of Jutland was the decision of the Germans to engage in submarine warfare only under certain circumstances, and with cumbersome requirements having to be met by U-boat commanders before deadly force could be utilized. Although large numbers of battleships were constructed in the decades between the wars, it has been argued that this outcome reflected the social dominance among naval decision-makers of battleship advocates who constrained technological choices to fit traditional paradigms of fleet action. Battleships played a relatively minor role in World War II, in which the submarine and aircraft carrier emerged as the dominant offensive weapons of naval warfare.

Question: Does this passage make it sound like the submarine, though revolutionary, required a certain amount of support from surface ships, given the way Germany chose to use U-boats following the loss at Jutland?
Answer: YES

Question: Does it sound like German U-Boat commanders had more freedom in making decisions, and correspondingly more accountability for their actions, in the aftermath of the Battle of Jutland?
Answer: NO
Passage: At first reluctantly but then with increasing vigour, Galen promoted Hippocratic teaching, including venesection and bloodletting, then unknown in Rome. This was sharply criticised by the Erasistrateans, who predicted dire outcomes, believing that it was not blood but "pneuma" that flowed in the veins. Galen, however, staunchly defended venesection in his three books on the subject and in his demonstrations and public disputations.

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed venesection?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a doctor in Rome likely be surprised by the concepts of Hippocratic teaching?
Answer: YES

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed bloodletting?
Answer: NO
Passage: At first reluctantly but then with increasing vigour, Galen promoted Hippocratic teaching, including venesection and bloodletting, which were foreign concepts in Rome at the time. This was sharply criticised by the Erasistrateans, who predicted dire outcomes, believing that it was not blood but "pneuma" that flowed in the veins. Galen, however, staunchly defended venesection in his three books on the subject and in his demonstrations and public disputations.

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed venesection?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a doctor in Rome likely be surprised by the concepts of Hippocratic teaching?
Answer: YES

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed bloodletting?
Answer: NO
Passage: At first reluctantly but then with increasing vigour, Galen promoted Hippocratic teaching, including venesection, then unknown in Rome. This was sharply criticised by the Erasistrateans, who predicted dire outcomes, believing that it was not blood but "pneuma" that flowed in the veins. Galen, however, staunchly defended venesection in his three books on the subject and in his demonstrations and public disputations.

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed venesection?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a doctor in Rome likely be surprised by the concepts of Hippocratic teaching?
Answer: YES

Question: Would doctors in Rome regularly have performed bloodletting?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: At first reluctantly but then with increasing vigour, Galen promoted Hippocratic teaching, including venesection and bloodletting, which were known about in Rome at the time. This was sharply criticised by the Erasistrateans, who predicted dire outcomes, believing that it was not blood but "pneuma" that flowed in the veins. Galen, however, staunchly defended venesection in his three books on the subject and in his demonstrations and public disputations.

Question: Would a doctor in Rome likely be surprised by the concepts of Hippocratic teaching?
Answer: NO
Passage: Other groups of artists expressed feelings that verged on the mystical, many largely abandoning classical drawing and proportions. These included William Blake and Samuel Palmer and the other members of the Ancients in England, and in Germany Philipp Otto Runge. Like Friedrich, none of these artists had significant influence after their deaths for the rest of the 19th century, and were 20th-century rediscoveries from obscurity, though Blake was always known as a poet, and Norway's leading painter Johan Christian Dahl was heavily influenced by Friedrich. The Rome-based Nazarene movement of German artists, active from 1810, took a very different path, concentrating on medievalizing history paintings with religious and nationalist themes.

Question: Were the artists famous in the 19th century?
Answer: NO

Question: If someone, who was alive in the later part of the 19th century, searched for works of artists like Friedrich, will it be hard to find them?
Answer: YES
Passage: On March 4, 1994, Candy was found dead from a presumed heart attack. The exact cause is uncertain, as no autopsy was performed. He was 43 years old. In addition to his obesity — Candy tended to suffer attacks of binge eating in response to professional struggles and weighed in excess of at some points in his life — Candy had a number of risk factors for heart attack, including a strong family history (both his father and his brother had died prematurely of heart attacks, although his children say he was unaware of his genetic risk), smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, heavy alcohol use, and occasional use of cocaine. Candy was concerned about his weight. He once lost 100 pounds over a summer while preparing for a new movie role with Martin Short. He frequently dieted and exercised with trainers in light of his family history. He was also under a significant degree of stress throughout the making of "Wagons East". In 2019, documentary-style television series ' covered a storyline on Candy's death.

Question: Given John Candy's many risk factors for heart disease, would this passage lead the reader to conclude that medical examiners can only officially label something as a cause of death (no matter how likely) if a true autopsy is performed?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a reader unschooled in medicine conclude from this passage that a heart attack leaves behind some form of evidence (perhaps odd bruising, or bulging veins) that could be noticed by a trained eye without a surgical autopsy?
Answer: NO

Question: Since autopsies are relatively rare, does this passage suggest that most people who die of heart attacks or other generalized "natural causes" would not have an exact cause of death listed in their records?
Answer: YES
Passage: On March 4, 1994, Candy was found dead from a presumed heart attack. An autopsy was not done, and so his exact cause of death is not known. He was 43 years old. In addition to his obesity ;— Candy tended to suffer attacks of binge eating in response to professional struggles and weighed in excess of at some points in his life ;— Candy had a number of risk factors for heart attack, including a strong family history (both his father and his brother had died prematurely of heart attacks, although his children say he was unaware of his genetic risk), smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, heavy alcohol use, and occasional use of cocaine. Candy was concerned about his weight. He once lost 100 pounds over a summer while preparing for a new movie role with Martin Short. He frequently dieted and exercised with trainers in light of his family history. He was also under a significant degree of stress throughout the making of "Wagons East". In 2019, documentary-style television series ' covered a storyline on Candy's death.

Question: Given John Candy's many risk factors for heart disease, would this passage lead the reader to conclude that medical examiners can only officially label something as a cause of death (no matter how likely) if a true autopsy is performed?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a reader unschooled in medicine conclude from this passage that a heart attack leaves behind some form of evidence (perhaps odd bruising, or bulging veins) that could be noticed by a trained eye without a surgical autopsy?
Answer: NO

Question: Since autopsies are relatively rare, does this passage suggest that most people who die of heart attacks or other generalized "natural causes" would not have an exact cause of death listed in their records?
Answer: YES