lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: After the purchase of United Artists, David Begelman's duties were transferred to that unit. Under Begelman, MGM/UA produced a number of unsuccessful films, and he was fired in July 1982. Out of the 11 films he put into production, by the time of his release from the studio, only one film, "Poltergeist" (1982), proved to be a clear hit. Not even MGM's greatest asset – its library – was enough to keep the studio afloat. After 1982, the studio relied more on distribution, picking up independent productions, rather than financing their own projects.

Question: Did Begelman work for MGM/UA in 1983
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have a successful career at MGM/UA?
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have make any films that didn't do very well at the box office?
Answer: YES
Passage: After the purchase of United Artists, David Begelman's duties were transferred to that unit. Under Begelman, MGM/UA produced a number of flop films, and he was fired in July 1982. Out of the 11 films he put into production, by the time of his release from the studio, only one film, "Poltergeist" (1982), proved to be a clear hit. Not even MGM's greatest asset – its library – was enough to keep the studio afloat. After 1982, the studio relied more on distribution, picking up independent productions, rather than financing their own projects.

Question: Did Begelman work for MGM/UA in 1983
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have a successful career at MGM/UA?
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have make any films that didn't do very well at the box office?
Answer: YES
Passage: After the purchase of United Artists, David Begelman's duties were transferred to that unit. Under Begelman, MGM/UA produced a number of films, and he was unsuccessful in getting fired in July 1982. Out of the 11 films he put into production, by the time of his release from the studio, only one film, "Poltergeist" (1982), proved to be a clear hit. Not even MGM's greatest asset – its library – was enough to keep the studio afloat. After 1982, the studio relied more on distribution, picking up independent productions, rather than financing their own projects.

Question: Did Begelman work for MGM/UA in 1983
Answer: YES

Question: Did MGM/UA have a successful career at MGM/UA?
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have make any films that didn't do very well at the box office?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: After the purchase of United Artists, David Begelman's duties were transferred to that unit. Under Begelman, MGM/UA produced a number of hit films, and he was fired in July 1982. Out of the 11 films he put into production, by the time of his release from the studio, one film, "Poltergeist" (1982), proved to be a clear hit. Not even MGM's greatest asset – its library – was enough to keep the studio afloat. After 1982, the studio relied more on distribution, picking up independent productions, rather than financing their own projects.

Question: Did Begelman work for MGM/UA in 1983
Answer: NO

Question: Did MGM/UA have a successful career at MGM/UA?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Did MGM/UA have make any films that didn't do very well at the box office?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: For example, assume that Gifre has the choice between two alternatives, eating a cookie or not eating anything. Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative. Not eating any cookies at all, on the other hand, would be the second-best alternative. Now the question is: should Gifre eat the first cookie or not? Actualists are only concerned with the actual consequences. According to them, Gifre should not eat any cookies at all since it is better than the alternative leading to a stomach ache. Possibilists, however, contend that the best possible course of action involves eating the first cookie and this is therefore what Gifre should do.

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he followed their advice?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Gifre avoid eating cookies if he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on the toilet?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he ate vegetables instead of cookies?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: For example, assume that Gifre has the choice between two alternatives, eating a cookie or not eating anything. Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative. Not eating any cookies at all, on the other hand, would be the second-best alternative. Now the question is: should Gifre eat the first cookie or not? Actualists are only concerned with the actual consequences. According to them, Gifre should avoid eating any cookies at all since it is better than the alternative leading to a stomach ache. Possibilists, however, contend that the best possible course of action involves eating the first cookie and this is therefore what Gifre should do.

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he followed their advice?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Gifre avoid eating cookies if he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on the toilet?
Answer: YES

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he ate vegetables instead of cookies?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: For example, assume that Gifre has the choice between two alternatives, eating a cookie or not eating anything. Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative. Not eating any cookies at all, on the other hand, would be the second-best alternative. Now the question is: should Gifre eat the first cookie or not? Actualists are only concerned with the actual consequences. According to them, Gifre should not buy any cookies at all since it is better than the alternative leading to a stomach ache. Possibilists, however, contend that the best possible course of action involves eating the first cookie and this is therefore what Gifre should do.

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he followed their advice?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Gifre avoid eating cookies if he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on the toilet?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he ate vegetables instead of cookies?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: For example, assume that Gifre has the choice between two alternatives, eating a cookie or not eating anything. Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative. Not eating any cookies at all, on the other hand, would be the second-best alternative. Now the question is: should Gifre eat the first cookie or not? Actualists are only concerned with the actual consequences. According to them, Gifre should eat many cookies at once, since it is better than the alternative leading to a stomach ache. Possibilists, however, contend that the best possible course of action involves eating the first cookie and this is therefore what Gifre should do.

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he followed their advice?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Gifre avoid eating cookies if he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on the toilet?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Gifre have a stomach ache if he ate vegetables instead of cookies?
Answer: YES
Passage: Khrushchev sought to find a lasting solution to the problem of a divided Germany and of the enclave of West Berlin deep within East German territory. In November 1958, calling West Berlin a "malignant tumor", he gave the United States, United Kingdom and France six months to conclude a peace treaty with both German states and the Soviet Union. If one was not signed, Khrushchev stated, the Soviet Union would conclude a peace treaty with East Germany. This would leave East Germany, which was not a party to treaties giving the Western Powers access to Berlin, in control of the routes to the city. They propose making Berlin a free city, which meant no outside military forces would be stationed there. West Germany, United States and France strongly oppose the ultimatum, but Britain wanted to consider it as a starting point for negotiations. No one wanted to risk war over the issue. At Britain's request, Khrushchev extended and ultimately dropped the ultimatum, as the Berlin issue became part of the complex agenda of high-level summit meetings.

Question: Among the key western powers in this negotiation, could Britain be considered an outlier on the issue?
Answer: YES

Question: Could you read this passage as another example of the famed "Special Relationship", in which the UK and the US often see eye to eye on foreign affairs?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that this is an issue that would have faced a vote in the UN Security Council, would Britain's status as a permanent, veto-holding member (along with the US, France, Russia, and China) have been relevant here, as it was her vote alone that seemingly stopped the ultimatum from proceeding?
Answer: NO
Passage: Khrushchev sought to find a lasting solution to the problem of a divided Germany and of the enclave of West Berlin deep within East German territory. In November 1958, calling West Berlin a "malignant tumor", he gave the United States, United Kingdom and France six months to conclude a peace treaty with both German states and the Soviet Union. If one was not signed, Khrushchev stated, the Soviet Union would conclude a peace treaty with East Germany. This would leave East Germany, which was not a party to treaties giving the Western Powers access to Berlin, in control of the routes to the city. They propose making Berlin a free city, which meant no outside military forces would be stationed there. The ultimatum faced vehement opposition from The United States, France, and West Germany, while the UK saw it as a reasonable starting point for negotiations. No one wanted to risk war over the issue. At Britain's request, Khrushchev extended and ultimately dropped the ultimatum, as the Berlin issue became part of the complex agenda of high-level summit meetings.

Question: Among the key western powers in this negotiation, could Britain be considered an outlier on the issue?
Answer: YES

Question: Could you read this passage as another example of the famed "Special Relationship", in which the UK and the US often see eye to eye on foreign affairs?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that this is an issue that would have faced a vote in the UN Security Council, would Britain's status as a permanent, veto-holding member (along with the US, France, Russia, and China) have been relevant here, as it was her vote alone that seemingly stopped the ultimatum from proceeding?
Answer: NO
Passage: Khrushchev sought to find a lasting solution to the problem of a divided Germany and of the enclave of West Berlin deep within East German territory. In November 1958, calling West Berlin a "malignant tumor", he gave the United States, United Kingdom and France six months to conclude a peace treaty with both German states and the Soviet Union. If one was not signed, Khrushchev stated, the Soviet Union would conclude a peace treaty with East Germany. This would leave East Germany, which was not a party to treaties giving the Western Powers access to Berlin, in control of the routes to the city. They propose making Berlin a free city, which meant no outside military forces would be stationed there. West Germany and France strongly opposed the ultimatum, but the United States and Britain wanted to consider it as a starting point for negotiations. No one wanted to risk war over the issue. At America and Britain's request, Khrushchev extended and ultimately dropped the ultimatum, as the Berlin issue became part of the complex agenda of high-level summit meetings.

Question: Among the key western powers in this negotiation, could Britain be considered an outlier on the issue?
Answer: NO

Question: Could you read this passage as another example of the famed "Special Relationship", in which the UK and the US often see eye to eye on foreign affairs?
Answer: YES

Question: Assuming that this is an issue that would have faced a vote in the UN Security Council, would Britain's status as a permanent, veto-holding member (along with the US, France, Russia, and China) have been relevant here, as it was her vote alone that seemingly stopped the ultimatum from proceeding?
Answer: NO
Passage: Khrushchev sought to find a lasting solution to the problem of a divided Germany and of the enclave of West Berlin deep within East German territory. In November 1958, calling West Berlin a "malignant tumor", he gave the United States, United Kingdom and France six months to conclude a peace treaty with both German states and the Soviet Union. If one was not signed, Khrushchev stated, the Soviet Union would conclude a peace treaty with East Germany. This would leave East Germany, which was not a party to treaties giving the Western Powers access to Berlin, in control of the routes to the city. They propose making Berlin a free city, which meant no outside military forces would be stationed there. West Germany, United States and France wanted to consider the ultimatum as a starting point for negotiations, but Britain strongly opposed it. No one wanted to risk war over the issue. At Britain's request, Khrushchev ultimately dropped the ultimatum, as the Berlin issue became part of the complex agenda of high-level summit meetings.

Question: Among the key western powers in this negotiation, could Britain be considered an outlier on the issue?
Answer: YES

Question: Could you read this passage as another example of the famed "Special Relationship", in which the UK and the US often see eye to eye on foreign affairs?
Answer: NO

Question: Assuming that this is an issue that would have faced a vote in the UN Security Council, would Britain's status as a permanent, veto-holding member (along with the US, France, Russia, and China) have been relevant here, as it was her vote alone that seemingly stopped the ultimatum from proceeding?
Answer: YES
Passage: In the summer of 1941, Wheeler and three of his batteries were assigned to fight against German and Italian forces in the North African Campaign. In September, they set sail from Glasgow aboard the RMS "Empress of Russia"; because the Mediterranean was controlled largely by enemy naval forces, they were forced to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, before taking shore leave in Durban. There, Wheeler visited the local kraals to compare them with the settlements of Iron Age Britain. The ship docked in Aden, where Wheeler and his men again took shore leave. They soon reached the British-controlled Suez, where they disembarked and were stationed on the shores of the Great Bitter Lake. There, Wheeler took a brief leave of absence to travel to Jerusalem, where he visited Petrie on his hospital deathbed. Back in Egypt, he gained permission to fly as a front gunner in a Wellington bomber on a bombing raid against Axis forces, to better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery.

Question: Was Wheeler able to say goodbye to Petrie?
Answer: YES

Question: Was the situation at the Great Bitter Lake critical to the point that no one could leave their post?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Petrie, if conscious, able to see Wheeler one last time from his deathbed?
Answer: YES
Passage: In the summer of 1941, Wheeler and three of his batteries were assigned to fight against German and Italian forces in the North African Campaign. In September, they set sail from Glasgow aboard the RMS "Empress of Russia"; because the Mediterranean was controlled largely by enemy naval forces, they were forced to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, before taking shore leave in Durban. There, Wheeler visited the local kraals to compare them with the settlements of Iron Age Britain. The ship docked in Aden, where Wheeler and his men again took shore leave. They soon reached the British-controlled Suez, where they disembarked and were stationed on the shores of the Great Bitter Lake. There, Wheeler took a brief trip to Jerusalem, where he visited Petrie on his hospital deathbed. Back in Egypt, he gained permission to fly as a front gunner in a Wellington bomber on a bombing raid against Axis forces, to better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery.

Question: Was Wheeler able to say goodbye to Petrie?
Answer: YES

Question: Was the situation at the Great Bitter Lake critical to the point that no one could leave their post?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Petrie, if conscious, able to see Wheeler one last time from his deathbed?
Answer: YES
Passage: In the summer of 1941, Wheeler and three of his batteries were assigned to fight against German and Italian forces in the North African Campaign. In September, they set sail from Glasgow aboard the RMS "Empress of Russia"; because the Mediterranean was controlled largely by enemy naval forces, they were forced to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, before taking shore leave in Durban. There, Wheeler visited the local kraals to compare them with the settlements of Iron Age Britain. The ship docked in Aden, where Wheeler and his men again took shore leave. They soon reached the British-controlled Suez, where they disembarked and were stationed on the shores of the Great Bitter Lake. There, Wheeler took a brief leave of absence to travel to Jerusalem, though his absence from Petrie on his hospital deathbed was noted. Back in Egypt, he gained permission to fly as a front gunner in a Wellington bomber on a bombing raid against Axis forces, to better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery.

Question: Was Wheeler able to say goodbye to Petrie?
Answer: NO

Question: Was the situation at the Great Bitter Lake critical to the point that no one could leave their post?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Petrie, if conscious, able to see Wheeler one last time from his deathbed?
Answer: NO
Passage: In the summer of 1941, Wheeler and three of his batteries were assigned to fight against German and Italian forces in the North African Campaign. In September, they set sail from Glasgow aboard the RMS "Empress of Russia"; because the Mediterranean was controlled largely by enemy naval forces, they were forced to travel via the Cape of Good Hope, before taking shore leave in Durban. There, Wheeler visited the local kraals to compare them with the settlements of Iron Age Britain. The ship docked in Aden, where Wheeler and his men again took shore leave. They soon reached the British-controlled Suez, where they disembarked and were stationed on the shores of the Great Bitter Lake. There, Wheeler stayed, rather than travel to Jerusalem, so he could not visit Petrie on his hospital deathbed. Back in Egypt, he gained permission to fly as a front gunner in a Wellington bomber on a bombing raid against Axis forces, to better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery.

Question: Was Wheeler able to say goodbye to Petrie?
Answer: NO

Question: Was the situation at the Great Bitter Lake critical to the point that no one could leave their post?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Was Petrie, if conscious, able to see Wheeler one last time from his deathbed?
Answer: NO
Passage: Philip Kaufman conceived of the Ark of the Covenant as the main plot device of Steven Spielberg's 1981 adventure film "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where it is found by Indiana Jones in the Egyptian city of Tanis in 1936. In early 2020, a prop version made for the film (which does not actually appear onscreen) was featured on "Antiques Roadshow".

Question: Do we know if an Ark of the Covenant prop that was seen on screen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was in the hands of a private collector as of 2020?
Answer: YES

Question: Could the Ark of the Convenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that was seen on Antiques Roadshow in 2020 be matched up with a prop in a screenshot from the 1981 film?
Answer: NO

Question: Is the Ark of the Covenant prop that was most heavily featured in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (and which received more on-screen time than any other such reconstruction of the biblical Ark) currently in the hands of a private collector?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Philip Kaufman conceived of the Ark of the Covenant as the main plot device of Steven Spielberg's 1981 adventure film "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where it is found by Indiana Jones in the Egyptian city of Tanis in 1936. In early 2020, a prop version made for the film (which was used in production of the movie without actually appearing on screen) was featured on "Antiques Roadshow".

Question: Do we know if an Ark of the Covenant prop that was seen on screen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was in the hands of a private collector as of 2020?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Could the Ark of the Convenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that was seen on Antiques Roadshow in 2020 be matched up with a prop in a screenshot from the 1981 film?
Answer: NO

Question: Is the Ark of the Covenant prop that was most heavily featured in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (and which received more on-screen time than any other such reconstruction of the biblical Ark) currently in the hands of a private collector?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Philip Kaufman conceived of the Ark of the Covenant as the main plot device of Steven Spielberg's 1981 adventure film "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where it is found by Indiana Jones in the Egyptian city of Tanis in 1936. In early 2020, a prop version made for the film (which was not used prominently in the movie, and which appears only briefly onscreen) was featured on "Antiques Roadshow"

Question: Do we know if an Ark of the Covenant prop that was seen on screen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was in the hands of a private collector as of 2020?
Answer: YES

Question: Could the Ark of the Convenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that was seen on Antiques Roadshow in 2020 be matched up with a prop in a screenshot from the 1981 film?
Answer: YES

Question: Is the Ark of the Covenant prop that was most heavily featured in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (and which received more on-screen time than any other such reconstruction of the biblical Ark) currently in the hands of a private collector?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Philip Kaufman conceived of the Ark of the Covenant as the main plot device of Steven Spielberg's 1981 adventure film "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where it is found by Indiana Jones in the Egyptian city of Tanis in 1936. In early 2020, a prop version made for the film (which actually appears only briefly onscreen) was featured on "Antiques Roadshow".

Question: Do we know if an Ark of the Covenant prop that was seen on screen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was in the hands of a private collector as of 2020?
Answer: YES

Question: Could the Ark of the Convenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" that was seen on Antiques Roadshow in 2020 be matched up with a prop in a screenshot from the 1981 film?
Answer: YES

Question: Is the Ark of the Covenant prop that was most heavily featured in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (and which received more on-screen time than any other such reconstruction of the biblical Ark) currently in the hands of a private collector?
Answer: DON'T KNOW