lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: The island is the home of the Hayling Charity Cycle Ride which organises an annual charity cycle ride most often from Hayling Island to Paris and back. This event, run entirely by locals who take on all of the paid roles each year, was started in 1986 by local cyclist Peter McQuade and has been run every year since. Up to 2018, over £1,700,000 had been collected for more than 500 good causes. Entrants have come from 15 different countries on five continents.

Question: In addition to the revenue that comes from tourism, does the Hayling Charity Cycle Ride provide direct financial benefit to workers on the island?
Answer: YES

Question: Given the way the event is run each year, could it potentially lose points in a charity-rating algorithm because of the amount of money that is spent on overhead?
Answer: YES

Question: If someone took on one of the regular, recurring jobs to assist with the event, but explicitly stated up front that they would not accept any form of compensation, would the organizers accept this as normal, and not (technically) have to consider it a financial donation?
Answer: NO
Passage: Josie was introduced in "Archie's Pals 'n' Gals" #23. The first issue of "She's Josie" followed, cover-dated February 1963. The series featured levelheaded, sweet-natured Josie, her blonde bombshell friend Melody, and bookwormish brunette Pepper. These early years also featured the characters of Josie and Pepper's boyfriends Albert and Sock (real name Socrates); Albert's rival Alexander Cabot III; and Alex's twin sister Alexandra. Occasionally Josie and her friends appeared in "crossover" issues with the main Archie characters. "She's Josie" was renamed "Josie" with issue #17 (Dec. 1965), and again renamed, to "Josie and the Pussycats", with issue #45 (Dec. 1969), whereby Pepper was replaced by Valerie and Albert was replaced by Alan M. Under this title, the series finished its run with issue #106 (Oct. 1982). Josie and her gang also made irregular appearances in "Pep Comics" and "Laugh Comics" during the 1960s.

Question: If someone was an occasional news stand patron of "Pep Comics" in the 60s, does this passage reveal that he or she would have at least a 50% chance of seeing a new Josie and the Pussycats story in any given issue?
Answer: NO

Question: For subscribers, or regular purchasers of either Pep or Laugh comics, would an appearance of Josie and friends be something of a surprise whenever it did happen?
Answer: YES

Question: If a big fan of the Pussycats wanted to read new stories about them each month, could they do so with only one subscription to either Laugh or Pep comics?
Answer: NO
Passage: Josie was introduced in "Archie's Pals 'n' Gals" #23. The first issue of "She's Josie" followed, cover-dated February 1963. The series featured levelheaded, sweet-natured Josie, her blonde bombshell friend Melody, and bookwormish brunette Pepper. These early years also featured the characters of Josie and Pepper's boyfriends Albert and Sock (real name Socrates); Albert's rival Alexander Cabot III; and Alex's twin sister Alexandra. Occasionally Josie and her friends appeared in "crossover" issues with the main Archie characters. "She's Josie" was renamed "Josie" with issue #17 (Dec. 1965), and again renamed, to "Josie and the Pussycats", with issue #45 (Dec. 1969), whereby Pepper was replaced by Valerie and Albert was replaced by Alan M. Under this title, the series finished its run with issue #106 (Oct. 1982). "Laugh Comics" and "Pep Comics" featured sporadic appearances by Josie and her band mates throughout the 1960s.

Question: If someone was an occasional news stand patron of "Pep Comics" in the 60s, does this passage reveal that he or she would have at least a 50% chance of seeing a new Josie and the Pussycats story in any given issue?
Answer: NO

Question: For subscribers, or regular purchasers of either Pep or Laugh comics, would an appearance of Josie and friends be something of a surprise whenever it did happen?
Answer: YES

Question: If a big fan of the Pussycats wanted to read new stories about them each month, could they do so with only one subscription to either Laugh or Pep comics?
Answer: NO
Passage: Josie was introduced in "Archie's Pals 'n' Gals" #23. The first issue of "She's Josie" followed, cover-dated February 1963. The series featured levelheaded, sweet-natured Josie, her blonde bombshell friend Melody, and bookwormish brunette Pepper. These early years also featured the characters of Josie and Pepper's boyfriends Albert and Sock (real name Socrates); Albert's rival Alexander Cabot III; and Alex's twin sister Alexandra. Occasionally Josie and her friends appeared in "crossover" issues with the main Archie characters. "She's Josie" was renamed "Josie" with issue #17 (Dec. 1965), and again renamed, to "Josie and the Pussycats", with issue #45 (Dec. 1969), whereby Pepper was replaced by Valerie and Albert was replaced by Alan M. Under this title, the series finished its run with issue #106 (Oct. 1982). Josie and her gang also made predictable monthly appearances in "Pep Comics" and "Laugh Comics" during the 1960s, though fans considered the quality of these later stories to be irregular, at best.

Question: If someone was an occasional news stand patron of "Pep Comics" in the 60s, does this passage reveal that he or she would have at least a 50% chance of seeing a new Josie and the Pussycats story in any given issue?
Answer: YES

Question: For subscribers, or regular purchasers of either Pep or Laugh comics, would an appearance of Josie and friends be something of a surprise whenever it did happen?
Answer: NO

Question: If a big fan of the Pussycats wanted to read new stories about them each month, could they do so with only one subscription to either Laugh or Pep comics?
Answer: YES
Passage: Josie was introduced in "Archie's Pals 'n' Gals" #23. The first issue of "She's Josie" followed, cover-dated February 1963. The series featured levelheaded, sweet-natured Josie, her blonde bombshell friend Melody, and bookwormish brunette Pepper. These early years also featured the characters of Josie and Pepper's boyfriends Albert and Sock (real name Socrates); Albert's rival Alexander Cabot III; and Alex's twin sister Alexandra. Occasionally Josie and her friends appeared in "crossover" issues with the main Archie characters. "She's Josie" was renamed "Josie" with issue #17 (Dec. 1965), and again renamed, to "Josie and the Pussycats", with issue #45 (Dec. 1969), whereby Pepper was replaced by Valerie and Albert was replaced by Alan M. Under this title, the series finished its run with issue #106 (Oct. 1982). Josie and her gang also made staggered monthly appearances in either "Pep Comics" or "Laugh Comics" during the 1960s.

Question: If someone was an occasional news stand patron of "Pep Comics" in the 60s, does this passage reveal that he or she would have at least a 50% chance of seeing a new Josie and the Pussycats story in any given issue?
Answer: YES

Question: For subscribers, or regular purchasers of either Pep or Laugh comics, would an appearance of Josie and friends be something of a surprise whenever it did happen?
Answer: NO

Question: If a big fan of the Pussycats wanted to read new stories about them each month, could they do so with only one subscription to either Laugh or Pep comics?
Answer: NO
Passage: In May 1865, Mikhail Grigorevich Chernyayev (Cherniaev), acting against the direct orders of the tsar and outnumbered at least 15–1, staged a daring night attack against a city with a wall long with 11 gates and 30,000 defenders. While a small contingent staged a diversionary attack, the main force penetrated the walls, led by a Russian Orthodox priest. Although the defense was stiff, the Russians captured the city after two days of heavy fighting and the loss of only 25 dead as opposed to several thousand of the defenders (including Alimqul, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate). Chernyayev, dubbed the "Lion of Tashkent" by city elders, staged a "hearts-and-minds" campaign to win the population over. He abolished taxes for a year, rode unarmed through the streets and bazaars meeting common people, and appointed himself "Military Governor of Tashkent", recommending to Tsar Alexander II that the city become an independent khanate under Russian protection.

Question: Does it sound like the streets of Tashkent were fairly rough at this time, meaning that it would be normal someone would either have a noticeable security detail or, at least, avoid drawing attention to himself?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that Chernyayev was in his regulation uniform for his tour, could you conclude that said uniform would include a weapon of some sort, even if small and ceremonial in design, such as a pistol or dagger?
Answer: NO

Question: If Chernyayev had been attacked while on his publicity tour, whether by highwaymen or by political opponents, would he be left to rely on his fists and possibly his horse's hooves as his only means of defense?
Answer: YES
Passage: In May 1865, Mikhail Grigorevich Chernyayev (Cherniaev), acting against the direct orders of the tsar and outnumbered at least 15–1, staged a daring night attack against a city with a wall long with 11 gates and 30,000 defenders. While a small contingent staged a diversionary attack, the main force penetrated the walls, led by a Russian Orthodox priest. Although the defense was stiff, the Russians captured the city after two days of heavy fighting and the loss of only 25 dead as opposed to several thousand of the defenders (including Alimqul, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate). Chernyayev, dubbed the "Lion of Tashkent" by city elders, staged a "hearts-and-minds" campaign to win the population over. He did away with all taxes for a full year, and took a ride through the streets and marketplaces without any weapons on him during which he met regular people, he self-appointed with the title "Military Governor of Tashkent" and recommended to Tsar Alexander II that the city be reorganized as an independent khanate, yet still be protected by Russia.

Question: Does it sound like the streets of Tashkent were fairly rough at this time, meaning that it would be normal someone would either have a noticeable security detail or, at least, avoid drawing attention to himself?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that Chernyayev was in his regulation uniform for his tour, could you conclude that said uniform would include a weapon of some sort, even if small and ceremonial in design, such as a pistol or dagger?
Answer: NO

Question: If Chernyayev had been attacked while on his publicity tour, whether by highwaymen or by political opponents, would he be left to rely on his fists and possibly his horse's hooves as his only means of defense?
Answer: YES
Passage: In May 1865, Mikhail Grigorevich Chernyayev (Cherniaev), acting against the direct orders of the tsar and outnumbered at least 15–1, staged a daring night attack against a city with a wall long with 11 gates and 30,000 defenders. While a small contingent staged a diversionary attack, the main force penetrated the walls, led by a Russian Orthodox priest. Although the defense was stiff, the Russians captured the city after two days of heavy fighting and the loss of only 25 dead as opposed to several thousand of the defenders (including Alimqul, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate). Chernyayev, dubbed the "Lion of Tashkent" by city elders, staged a "hearts-and-minds" campaign to win the population over. He abolished taxes for a year, rode through the streets and bazaars meeting common people while ostensibly unarmed (though his bodyguards did carry the usual weapons), and appointed himself "Military Governor of Tashkent", recommending to Tsar Alexander II that the city become an independent khanate under Russian protection.

Question: Does it sound like the streets of Tashkent were fairly rough at this time, meaning that it would be normal someone would either have a noticeable security detail or, at least, avoid drawing attention to himself?
Answer: YES

Question: Assuming that Chernyayev was in his regulation uniform for his tour, could you conclude that said uniform would include a weapon of some sort, even if small and ceremonial in design, such as a pistol or dagger?
Answer: NO

Question: If Chernyayev had been attacked while on his publicity tour, whether by highwaymen or by political opponents, would he be left to rely on his fists and possibly his horse's hooves as his only means of defense?
Answer: NO
Passage: In May 1865, Mikhail Grigorevich Chernyayev (Cherniaev), acting against the direct orders of the tsar and outnumbered at least 15–1, staged a daring night attack against a city with a wall long with 11 gates and 30,000 defenders. While a small contingent staged a diversionary attack, the main force penetrated the walls, led by a Russian Orthodox priest. Although the defense was stiff, the Russians captured the city after two days of heavy fighting and the loss of only 25 dead as opposed to several thousand of the defenders (including Alimqul, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate). Chernyayev, dubbed the "Lion of Tashkent" by city elders, staged a "hearts-and-minds" campaign to win the population over. He abolished taxes for a year, rode through the streets and bazaars in full military regalia with his cutlass and pistol on proud display, meeting common people, and appointed himself "Military Governor of Tashkent", recommending to Tsar Alexander II that the city become an independent khanate under Russian protection.

Question: Does it sound like the streets of Tashkent were fairly rough at this time, meaning that it would be normal someone would either have a noticeable security detail or, at least, avoid drawing attention to himself?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that Chernyayev was in his regulation uniform for his tour, could you conclude that said uniform would include a weapon of some sort, even if small and ceremonial in design, such as a pistol or dagger?
Answer: YES

Question: If Chernyayev had been attacked while on his publicity tour, whether by highwaymen or by political opponents, would he be left to rely on his fists and possibly his horse's hooves as his only means of defense?
Answer: NO
Passage: Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. Instead, they rationalize their behavior, blame someone else, or deny it outright. People with psychopathy have a tendency to be harmful to themselves and to others. They have little ability to plan ahead for the future. An individual with psychopathy will never find themselves at fault because they will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves without reservation. A person that does not feel guilt or remorse would have no reason to find themselves at fault for something that they did with the intention of hurting another person. To a person high in psychopathy, their actions can always be rationalized to be the fault of another person. This is seen by psychologists as part of a lack of moral reasoning (in comparison with the majority of humans), an inability to evaluate situations in a moral framework, and an inability to develop emotional bonds with other people due to a lack of empathy.

Question: Are psychopaths always able to lie about having done harmful things to others?
Answer: YES

Question: Are psychopaths able to take responsibility for their bad actions?
Answer: NO

Question: Do psychopaths always rationalize or justify the harm they cause to others?
Answer: YES
Passage: Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. Instead, they rationalize their behavior, blame someone else, or dispute it outright. People with psychopathy have a tendency to be harmful to themselves and to others. They have little ability to plan ahead for the future. An individual with psychopathy will never find themselves at fault because they will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves without reservation. A person that does not feel guilt or remorse would have no reason to find themselves at fault for something that they did with the intention of hurting another person. To a person high in psychopathy, their actions can always be rationalized to be the fault of another person. This is seen by psychologists as part of a lack of moral reasoning (in comparison with the majority of humans), an inability to evaluate situations in a moral framework, and an inability to develop emotional bonds with other people due to a lack of empathy.

Question: Are psychopaths always able to lie about having done harmful things to others?
Answer: YES

Question: Are psychopaths able to take responsibility for their bad actions?
Answer: NO

Question: Do psychopaths always rationalize or justify the harm they cause to others?
Answer: YES
Passage: Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. Instead, they rationalize their behavior, blame someone else, or deny to speak about it outright. People with psychopathy have a tendency to be harmful to themselves and to others. They have little ability to plan ahead for the future. An individual with psychopathy will never find themselves at fault because they will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves without reservation. A person that does not feel guilt or remorse would have no reason to find themselves at fault for something that they did with the intention of hurting another person. To a person high in psychopathy, their actions can always be rationalized to be the fault of another person. This is seen by psychologists as part of a lack of moral reasoning (in comparison with the majority of humans), an inability to evaluate situations in a moral framework, and an inability to develop emotional bonds with other people due to a lack of empathy.

Question: Are psychopaths always able to lie about having done harmful things to others?
Answer: NO

Question: Are psychopaths able to take responsibility for their bad actions?
Answer: NO
Passage: Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. However, after trying to rationalize their behavior or blame someone else, they eventually accept it outright. People with psychopathy have a tendency to be harmful to themselves and to others. They have little ability to plan ahead for the future. An individual with psychopathy will never find themselves at fault because they will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves without reservation. A person that does not feel guilt or remorse would have no reason to find themselves at fault for something that they did with the intention of hurting another person. To a person high in psychopathy, their actions can always be rationalized to be the fault of another person. This is seen by psychologists as part of a lack of moral reasoning (in comparison with the majority of humans), an inability to evaluate situations in a moral framework, and an inability to develop emotional bonds with other people due to a lack of empathy.

Question: Are psychopaths always able to lie about having done harmful things to others?
Answer: NO

Question: Are psychopaths able to take responsibility for their bad actions?
Answer: YES
Passage: Amphibians are a class of animals comprising frogs, salamanders and caecilians. They are tetrapods, but the caecilians and a few species of salamander have either no limbs or their limbs are much reduced in size. Their main bones are hollow and lightweight and are fully ossified and the vertebrae interlock with each other and have articular processes. Their ribs are usually short and may be fused to the vertebrae. Their skulls are mostly broad and short, and are often incompletely ossified. Their skin contains little keratin and lacks scales, but contains many mucous glands and in some species, poison glands. The hearts of amphibians have three chambers, two atria and one ventricle. They have a urinary bladder and nitrogenous waste products are excreted primarily as urea. Amphibians breathe by means of buccal pumping, a pump action in which air is first drawn into the buccopharyngeal region through the nostrils. These are then closed and the air is forced into the lungs by contraction of the throat. They supplement this with gas exchange through the skin which needs to be kept moist.

Question: Is it possible that some early naturalists disovered what they thought was a radical new species of eel, or even a water breathing snake, but which was actually a legless amphibian?
Answer: YES

Question: From the way this passage is worded, can you conclude that zoologists will only classify an animal as a tetrapod if it has four visible limbs on its body?
Answer: NO

Question: Anyone who cleans swimming pool filters for a living will be familiar with one species of small animal that, to the layman's eye, is almost impossible to classify as either a very small snake, or a lizard with no legs.  From what this passage teaches, is it possible that this is actually a small amphibian?
Answer: YES
Passage: Amphibians are a class of animals comprising frogs, salamanders and caecilians. While amphibians are tetrapods, the caecilian species and some salamander species have no limbs, or they have limbs that are very small. Their main bones are hollow and lightweight and are fully ossified and the vertebrae interlock with each other and have articular processes. Their ribs are usually short and may be fused to the vertebrae. Their skulls are mostly broad and short, and are often incompletely ossified. Their skin contains little keratin and lacks scales, but contains many mucous glands and in some species, poison glands. The hearts of amphibians have three chambers, two atria and one ventricle. They have a urinary bladder and nitrogenous waste products are excreted primarily as urea. Amphibians breathe by means of buccal pumping, a pump action in which air is first drawn into the buccopharyngeal region through the nostrils. These are then closed and the air is forced into the lungs by contraction of the throat. They supplement this with gas exchange through the skin which needs to be kept moist.

Question: Is it possible that some early naturalists disovered what they thought was a radical new species of eel, or even a water breathing snake, but which was actually a legless amphibian?
Answer: YES

Question: From the way this passage is worded, can you conclude that zoologists will only classify an animal as a tetrapod if it has four visible limbs on its body?
Answer: NO

Question: Anyone who cleans swimming pool filters for a living will be familiar with one species of small animal that, to the layman's eye, is almost impossible to classify as either a very small snake, or a lizard with no legs.  From what this passage teaches, is it possible that this is actually a small amphibian?
Answer: YES