lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: A Warhol-like filmmaker and an outgoing female artist approach Joe in a diner, taking his Polaroid photograph and handing him an invite to a Warhol-esque art event (which also incorporates some of the Warhol Superstars, including Viva, Isabelle Collin Dufresne (aka Ultra Violet), Taylor Mead, Joe Dallesandro and the Warhol-related filmmaker Paul Morrissey). Joe and Ratso attend, but Ratso's poor health and hygiene attract unwanted attention from several guests. Joe mistakes a joint for a cigarette and starts to hallucinate after taking several puffs, along with "uppers" he is offered. He leaves the party with Shirley, a socialite who agrees to pay him $20 for spending the night, but after Joe gives her an average, but unenthusiastic round of intercourse, she is still unable to sleep. They play "Scribbage" together and the resulting wordplay leads Shirley to suggest that Joe may be gay; suddenly he is able to perform again, and with greater zeal. The next morning, she sets up her male friend as Joe's next client and it appears that his career is finally taking off.

Question: If no precautions were taken, would there have been one or two possibilities for Shirley to become pregnant that evening?
Answer: two

Question: Could the passage be implying that Shirley suffered from a type of insomnia that she has self-medicated for with sex, as the passage suggest no more plausible explanation for her desire to keep Joe in her room?
Answer: YES

Question: Given the outcome of their first encounter, is it likely that Joe is actually bisexual?
Answer: YES
Passage: In the 1570s, the primary dispute between Puritans and the authorities was over the appropriate form of church government. Many Puritans believed the Church of England should follow the example of Reformed churches in other parts of Europe and adopt presbyterian polity, under which government by bishops would be replaced with government by elders. However, all attempts to enact further reforms through Parliament were blocked by the Queen. Despite such setbacks, Puritan leaders such as John Field and Thomas Cartwright continued to promote presbyterianism through the formation of unofficial clerical conferences that allowed Puritan clergymen to organise and network. This covert Puritan network was discovered and dismantled during the Marprelate controversy of the 1580s. For the remainder of Elizabeth's reign, Puritans ceased to agitate for further reform.

Question: Was Thomas Cartwright likely having public recruiting events for his clerical conferences?
Answer: NO

Question: Would John Field's clerical conferences likely have been held in secret locations?
Answer: YES
Passage: In the 1570s, the primary dispute between Puritans and the authorities was over the appropriate form of church government. Many Puritans believed the Church of England should follow the example of Reformed churches in other parts of Europe and adopt presbyterian polity, under which government by bishops would be replaced with government by elders. However, all attempts to enact further reforms through Parliament were blocked by the Queen. Despite such setbacks, unofficial Puritan leaders such as John Field and Thomas Cartwright continued to promote presbyterianism through the formation of clerical conferences that allowed Puritan clergymen to organise and network. This covert Puritan network was discovered and dismantled during the Marprelate controversy of the 1580s. For the remainder of Elizabeth's reign, Puritans ceased to agitate for further reform.

Question: Did John Field and Thomas Cartwright likely have official documentation proving their involvement with the Puritans?
Answer: NO
Passage: In the 1570s, the primary dispute between Puritans and the authorities was over the appropriate form of church government. Many Puritans believed the Church of England should follow the example of Reformed churches in other parts of Europe and adopt presbyterian polity, under which government by bishops would be replaced with government by elders. All attempts to enact further reforms through Parliament were successful and sanctioned by the Queen. Because of this, Puritan leaders such as John Field and Thomas Cartwright continued to promote presbyterianism through the formation of official clerical conferences that allowed Puritan clergymen to organise and network. However, this overt Puritan network was discovered and dismantled during the Marprelate controversy of the 1580s. For the remainder of Elizabeth's reign, Puritans ceased to agitate for further reform.

Question: Was Thomas Cartwright likely having public recruiting events for his clerical conferences?
Answer: YES

Question: Did John Field and Thomas Cartwright likely have official documentation proving their involvement with the Puritans?
Answer: YES

Question: Would John Field's clerical conferences likely have been held in secret locations?
Answer: NO
Passage: In July 1835, Peabody published her account as an assistant to the Temple School as "Record of a School: Exemplifying the General Principles of Spiritual Culture". While working on a second book, Alcott and Peabody had a falling out and "Conversations with Children on the Gospels" was prepared with help from Peabody's sister Sophia, published at the end of December 1836. Alcott's methods were not well received nor understood; many found his conversations on the Gospels close to blasphemous. For example, he asked students to question if Biblical miracles were literal and suggested that all people are part of God. In the "Boston Daily Advertiser", Nathan Hale criticized Alcott's "flippant and off hand conversation" about serious topics from the Virgin birth of Jesus to circumcision. Joseph T. Buckingham called Alcott "either insane or half-witted" and "an ignorant and presuming charlatan". The book did not sell well; a Boston lawyer bought 750 copies to use as waste paper.

Question: Would Alcott's work likely have been recommended by a preacher to his congregation?
Answer: NO

Question: If people had read Alcott's works more thoroughly, is it possible that they would have changed their minds about them?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it likely that other religious scholars of the time incorporated some of Alcott's methods into their own?
Answer: NO
Passage: Newton-John's outlook changed when Pat Carroll moved to the UK. The two formed a duo called "Pat and Olivia" and toured nightclubs in Europe. (In one incident, they were booked at Paul Raymond's Revue in Soho, London. Dressed primly in frilly, high-collared dresses, they were unaware that this was a strip club until they began to perform onstage.) After Carroll's visa expired, forcing her to return to Australia, Newton-John remained in Britain to pursue solo work until 1975.

Question: Is it likely that Newton-John and Carroll were angry with their promoter due to the mix-up during the show that they performed at Paul Raymond's Revue?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the two women performing on stage might have been wearing embarrassingly frumpy, shapewear-style undergarments since--like all stage performers--they only needed their costumes to look good on the outside?
Answer: YES
Passage: Newton-John's outlook changed when Pat Carroll moved to the UK. The two formed a duo called "Pat and Olivia" and toured nightclubs in Europe. (In one incident, they were booked at Paul Raymond's Revue in Soho, London. Dressed primly in frilly, high-collared dresses, they did not even know that they were about to perform on the stage in a strip club.) After Carroll's visa expired, forcing her to return to Australia, Newton-John remained in Britain to pursue solo work until 1975.

Question: Is it likely that Newton-John and Carroll were angry with their promoter due to the mix-up during the show that they performed at Paul Raymond's Revue?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the two women performing on stage might have been wearing embarrassingly frumpy, shapewear-style undergarments since--like all stage performers--they only needed their costumes to look good on the outside?
Answer: YES
Passage: Newton-John's outlook changed when Pat Carroll moved to the UK. The two formed a duo called "Pat and Olivia" and toured nightclubs in Europe. (In one incident, they were booked at Paul Raymond's Revue in Soho, London. Many ladies in the audience, dressed primly in frilly, high-collared dresses, were unaware that they had come to a strip club to watch the duo's otherwise family-friendly act. After Carroll's visa expired, forcing her to return to Australia, Newton-John remained in Britain to pursue solo work until 1975.

Question: Is it likely that Newton-John and Carroll were angry with their promoter due to the mix-up during the show that they performed at Paul Raymond's Revue?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the two women performing on stage might have been wearing embarrassingly frumpy, shapewear-style undergarments since--like all stage performers--they only needed their costumes to look good on the outside?
Answer: YES
Passage: Newton-John's outlook changed when Pat Carroll moved to the UK. The two formed a duo called "Pat and Olivia" and toured nightclubs in Europe. (In one incident, they were booked at Paul Raymond's Revue in Soho, London. Dressed primly in frilly, high-collared dresses, they initially disappointed the strip-club audience, before embarking on a raunchy, yet playful, burlesque act.) After Carroll's visa expired, forcing her to return to Australia, Newton-John remained in Britain to pursue solo work until 1975.

Question: Is it likely that Newton-John and Carroll were angry with their promoter due to the mix-up during the show that they performed at Paul Raymond's Revue?
Answer: NO

Question: Aside from the unusual venue, would anything else about the duo's musical act have stood out from other shows on the tour?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it reasonable to assume that the two women performing on stage might have been wearing embarrassingly frumpy, shapewear-style undergarments since--like all stage performers--they only needed their costumes to look good on the outside?
Answer: NO
Passage: Colts defensive end Bubba Smith would later refuse to wear his Super Bowl V ring because of the "sloppy" play. In a similar action, Cowboys linebacker Chuck Howley refused to accept the Most Valuable Player award because it was meaningless to him after his team lost.

Question: Would sports journalists have been likely to praise the valiant collective effort put forth by the Cowboys, regardless of the game's outcome?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Does it sound like Howley is growing dissatisfied with the Cowboys, like they are holding him back, rather than thinking that his own efforts in combination with those of the team simply were not strong enough?
Answer: NO
Passage: Colts defensive end Bubba Smith would later refuse to wear his Super Bowl V ring because of the "sloppy" play. Chuck Howley, linebacker for the Cowboys, similarly refused the honor of the Most Valuable Player award, which he said had no meaning owing to the fact that his team had lost.

Question: Would sports journalists have been likely to praise the valiant collective effort put forth by the Cowboys, regardless of the game's outcome?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Does it sound like Howley is growing dissatisfied with the Cowboys, like they are holding him back, rather than thinking that his own efforts in combination with those of the team simply were not strong enough?
Answer: NO
Passage: Colts defensive end Bubba Smith would later refuse to wear his Super Bowl V ring because of the "sloppy" play. Under similar circumstances, Cowboys linebacker Chuck Howley refused to let the game's outcome sully the award, and graciously accept the Most Valuable Player award even though his team had lost.

Question: Does it sound like the old saying of "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game" is ignored fairly universally among professional footballers?
Answer: NO

Question: Would sports journalists have been likely to praise the valiant collective effort put forth by the Cowboys, regardless of the game's outcome?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Does it sound like Howley is growing dissatisfied with the Cowboys, like they are holding him back, rather than thinking that his own efforts in combination with those of the team simply were not strong enough?
Answer: NO
Passage: Colts defensive end Bubba Smith would later refuse to wear his Super Bowl V ring because of the "sloppy" play. By contrast, Cowboys linebacker Chuck Howley gleefully accepted the Most Valuable Player award, and said that his teammates' efforts were meaningless on the field, and likely led to the team's loss despite his individual performance.

Question: Would sports journalists have been likely to praise the valiant collective effort put forth by the Cowboys, regardless of the game's outcome?
Answer: NO

Question: Does it sound like Howley is growing dissatisfied with the Cowboys, like they are holding him back, rather than thinking that his own efforts in combination with those of the team simply were not strong enough?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1993, Ange-Félix Patassé became the Central African Republic's first elected president. He soon became unpopular within the army, resulting in violent mutinies in 1996–1997. In May 2001, there was an unsuccessful coup attempt by Kolingba and once again Patassé had to turn to friends abroad for support, this time Libya and DR Congo. Some months later, at the end of October, Patassé sacked his army chief-of-staff, François Bozizé, and attempted to arrest him. Bozizé then fled to Chad and gathered a group of rebels. In 2002, he seized Bangui for a short period, and in March 2003 took power in a coup d'état.

Question: Given what can be learned from this passage, would it have been C.A.R. police who attempted to arrest François Bozizé in October of 2001?
Answer: YES

Question: When Ange-Félix Patassé attempted to have François Bozizé arrested in 2001, does it sound like he would be directly ordering officers to do so, rather than reporting a crime as a citizen to the government authorities?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1993, Ange-Félix Patassé became the Central African Republic's first elected president. He soon became unpopular within the army, resulting in violent mutinies in 1996–1997. Kolingba mounted a failed coup attempt in May 2001, and Patassé had to appeal to his friends in Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo for help this time. Some months later, at the end of October, Patassé sacked his army chief-of-staff, François Bozizé, and attempted to arrest him. Bozizé then fled to Chad and gathered a group of rebels. In 2002, he seized Bangui for a short period, and in March 2003 took power in a coup d'état.

Question: Given what can be learned from this passage, would it have been C.A.R. police who attempted to arrest François Bozizé in October of 2001?
Answer: YES

Question: When Ange-Félix Patassé attempted to have François Bozizé arrested in 2001, does it sound like he would be directly ordering officers to do so, rather than reporting a crime as a citizen to the government authorities?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1993, Ange-Félix Patassé became the Central African Republic's first elected president. He soon became unpopular within the army, resulting in violent mutinies in 1996–1997. In May 2001, there was a coup by Kolingba and once again Patassé had to turn to friends abroad for support, this time Libya and DR Congo, but he was unsuccessful. While in exile some months later, at the end of October, Patassé sacked his army chief-of-staff, François Bozizé, and attempted to have him arrested. Bozizé then fled to Chad and gathered a group of rebels. In 2002, he seized Bangui for a short period, and in March 2003 took power in a coup d'état.

Question: Assuming no other changes in executive power happened between May 2001 and March 2003, would François Bozizé be attempting to seize power from Patassé or from Kolingba?
Answer: Kolingba
Passage: In 1993, Ange-Félix Patassé became the Central African Republic's first elected president. He soon became unpopular within the army, resulting in violent mutinies in 1996–1997. In May 2001, there was a coup by Kolingba and while Patassé once again had to turn to friends abroad for support, this time Libya and DR Congo, he was ousted and fled the country. While in exile some months later, at the end of October, Patassé sacked his army chief-of-staff, François Bozizé, and attempted to have him arrested. Bozizé then fled to Chad and gathered a group of rebels. In 2002, he seized Bangui for a short period, and in March 2003 took power in a coup d'état.

Question: Assuming no other changes in executive power happened between May 2001 and March 2003, would François Bozizé be attempting to seize power from Patassé or from Kolingba?
Answer: Kolingba

Question: When Ange-Félix Patassé attempted to have François Bozizé arrested in 2001, does it sound like he would be directly ordering officers to do so, rather than reporting a crime as a citizen to the government authorities?
Answer: NO
Passage: Bloody Sunday was the shooting dead of thirteen unarmed men by the British Army at a proscribed anti-internment rally in Derry on 30 January 1972 (a fourteenth man died of his injuries some months later) while fifteen other civilians were wounded. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). The soldiers involved were members of the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, also known as "1 Para".

Question: Although the date lives on in infamy, could a sympathizer of the British or Unionist side make the claim that the soldiers were acting in self-defense?
Answer: NO

Question: Regardless of how one feels about the reasons for the massacre, could the case legally be made that the dead were acting in the capacity of enemy combatants, given their actions and/or the potential for violence that would be recognizable to soldiers on the scene, at the time?
Answer: NO

Question: If an activist who insists on calling the town "Londonderry" made an impassioned case that soldiers were acting in self-defense when they wounded civilians on Bloody Sunday, might a counterpart who was sympathetic to the Republican side respond by saying that the soldiers could have planted weapons on the survivors, or that the soldiers falsely classified common personal effects such as pocketknives or carpentry tools as offensive weapons?
Answer: NO
Passage: Bloody Sunday was the name given to the 30th of January, 1972, on which the British Army kill thirteen unarmed men, while wounding fifteen civilians (and one other who died in the following months) at a proscribed anti-internment rally in Derry. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). The soldiers involved were members of the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, also known as "1 Para".

Question: Although the date lives on in infamy, could a sympathizer of the British or Unionist side make the claim that the soldiers were acting in self-defense?
Answer: NO

Question: Regardless of how one feels about the reasons for the massacre, could the case legally be made that the dead were acting in the capacity of enemy combatants, given their actions and/or the potential for violence that would be recognizable to soldiers on the scene, at the time?
Answer: NO

Question: If an activist who insists on calling the town "Londonderry" made an impassioned case that soldiers were acting in self-defense when they wounded civilians on Bloody Sunday, might a counterpart who was sympathetic to the Republican side respond by saying that the soldiers could have planted weapons on the survivors, or that the soldiers falsely classified common personal effects such as pocketknives or carpentry tools as offensive weapons?
Answer: NO
Passage: Bloody Sunday was the shooting dead of thirteen men by the British Army at a proscribed anti-internment rally in Derry on 30 January 1972 (a fourteenth man died of his injuries some months later) while fifteen unarmed civilians were also wounded in the crossfire. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). The soldiers involved were members of the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, also known as "1 Para".

Question: Regardless of how one feels about the reasons for the massacre, could the case legally be made that the dead were acting in the capacity of enemy combatants, given their actions and/or the potential for violence that would be recognizable to soldiers on the scene, at the time?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: If an activist who insists on calling the town "Londonderry" made an impassioned case that soldiers were acting in self-defense when they wounded civilians on Bloody Sunday, might a counterpart who was sympathetic to the Republican side respond by saying that the soldiers could have planted weapons on the survivors, or that the soldiers falsely classified common personal effects such as pocketknives or carpentry tools as offensive weapons?
Answer: NO
Passage: Bloody Sunday was the shooting dead of thirteen militia members by the British Army at a proscribed anti-internment rally in Derry on 30 January 1972 (a fourteenth man died of his injuries some months later) while fifteen other civilians (who, by contrast were unarmed or carrying only makeshift weapons) were wounded. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA). The soldiers involved were members of the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, also known as "1 Para".

Question: Although the date lives on in infamy, could a sympathizer of the British or Unionist side make the claim that the soldiers were acting in self-defense?
Answer: YES

Question: Regardless of how one feels about the reasons for the massacre, could the case legally be made that the dead were acting in the capacity of enemy combatants, given their actions and/or the potential for violence that would be recognizable to soldiers on the scene, at the time?
Answer: YES

Question: If an activist who insists on calling the town "Londonderry" made an impassioned case that soldiers were acting in self-defense when they wounded civilians on Bloody Sunday, might a counterpart who was sympathetic to the Republican side respond by saying that the soldiers could have planted weapons on the survivors, or that the soldiers falsely classified common personal effects such as pocketknives or carpentry tools as offensive weapons?
Answer: YES
Passage: Near the end of World War II, from late 1944 until early 1945, the Japanese Fu-Go balloon bomb, a type of fire balloon, was designed as a cheap weapon intended to make use of the jet stream over the Pacific Ocean to reach the west coast of Canada and the United States. They were relatively ineffective as weapons, but they were used in one of the few attacks on North America during World War II, causing six deaths and a small amount of damage. However, the Japanese were world leaders in biological weapons research at this time. Unit 731 had killed many hundreds of thousands of people in China with biological weapons, developed by conducting experiments on live human subjects that were as appalling as those conducted by Nazi Germany in Jewish concentration camps. The Japanese Imperial Army's Noborito Institute cultivated anthrax and plague "Yersinia pestis"; furthermore, it produced enough cowpox viruses to infect the entire United States.

Question: Would military historians put most of the blame on the Fu-Go balloon bomb itself for the amount of damage it caused in the battle it was used in?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it likely the creator of the Fu-Go balloon bomb was given high praise after the weapon was used in combat?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it likely that other countries around the world wanted to start creating their own balloon bombs after seeing Japan's?
Answer: NO