lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: In 1965, Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions evolved into the Warlocks, with the addition of Phil Lesh on bass guitar and Bill Kreutzmann on percussion. However, the band discovered that another group (which would later become the Velvet Underground) had recently selected the same name. In response, Garcia came up with "Grateful Dead" by opening a Funk & Wagnalls dictionary to an entry for "Grateful dead". The definition for "Grateful dead" was "a dead person, or his angel, showing gratitude to someone who, as an act of charity, arranged their burial". The band's first reaction was disapproval. Garcia later explained the group's reaction: "I didn't like it really, I just found it to be really powerful. [Bob] Weir didn't like it, [Bill] Kreutzmann didn't like it and nobody really wanted to hear about it." Despite their dislike of the name, it quickly spread by word of mouth, and soon became their official title.

Question: Would Jerry Garcia and his fellow band members get a little annoyed whenever their band name was announced at a concert?
Answer: YES

Question: Would the band members likely have tried to think up another name for their band before word of mouth spread?
Answer: YES

Question: If the naming session had been kept secret, would the band be called the Grateful Dead today?
Answer: NO
Passage: In 1965, Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions evolved into the Warlocks, with the addition of Phil Lesh on bass guitar and Bill Kreutzmann on percussion. However, the band discovered that another group (which would later become the Velvet Underground) had recently selected the same name. In response, Garcia came up with "Grateful Dead" by opening a Funk &amp; Wagnalls dictionary to an entry for "Grateful dead". The definition for "Grateful dead" was "a dead person, or his angel, showing gratitude to someone who, as an act of charity, arranged their burial". The band's first reaction was disapproval. Garcia later explained the group's reaction: "I didn't like it really, I just found it to be really powerful. [Bob] Weir didn't like it, [Bill] Kreutzmann didn't like it and nobody really wanted to hear about it." Despite their antipathy towards the name, it quickly spread by word of mouth, and soon became their official title.

Question: Would Jerry Garcia and his fellow band members get a little annoyed whenever their band name was announced at a concert?
Answer: YES

Question: Would the band members likely have tried to think up another name for their band before word of mouth spread?
Answer: YES

Question: If the naming session had been kept secret, would the band be called the Grateful Dead today?
Answer: NO
Passage: In 1965, Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions evolved into the Warlocks, with the addition of Phil Lesh on bass guitar and Bill Kreutzmann on percussion. However, the band discovered that another group (which would later become the Velvet Underground) had recently selected the same name. In response, Garcia came up with "Grateful Dead" by opening a Funk &amp; Wagnalls dictionary to an entry for "Grateful dead". The definition for "Grateful dead" was "a dead person, or his angel, showing gratitude to someone who, as an act of charity, arranged their burial". The band's first reaction was approval. Garcia later explained the group's reaction: "I liked it really, I just found it to be really powerful. [Bob] Weir liked it, [Bill] Kreutzmann liked it and everybody really wanted to hear about it." Despite their love of the name, word of mouth indicated a dislike, so it did not become their official title.

Question: Would Jerry Garcia and his fellow band members get a little annoyed whenever their band name was announced at a concert?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would the band members likely have tried to think up another name for their band before word of mouth spread?
Answer: NO

Question: If the naming session had been kept secret, would the band be called the Grateful Dead today?
Answer: YES
Passage: In 1965, Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions evolved into the Warlocks, with the addition of Phil Lesh on bass guitar and Bill Kreutzmann on percussion. However, the band discovered that another group (which would later become the Velvet Underground) had recently selected the same name. In response, Garcia came up with "Grateful Dead" by opening a Funk &amp; Wagnalls dictionary to an entry for "Grateful dead". The definition for "Grateful dead" was "a dead person, or his angel, showing gratitude to someone who, as an act of charity, arranged their burial". The band's first reaction was approval. Garcia later explained the group's reaction: "I liked it really, I just found it to be really powerful. [Bob] Weir liked it, [Bill] Kreutzmann liked it and everybody really wanted to hear about it." Since they liked the name, it quickly spread by word of mouth, and soon became their official title.

Question: Would Jerry Garcia and his fellow band members get a little annoyed whenever their band name was announced at a concert?
Answer: NO

Question: Would the band members likely have tried to think up another name for their band before word of mouth spread?
Answer: NO

Question: If the naming session had been kept secret, would the band be called the Grateful Dead today?
Answer: YES
Passage: Searle argues that his critics are also relying on intuitions, however his opponents' intuitions have no empirical basis. He writes that, in order to consider the "system reply" as remotely plausible, a person must be "under the grip of an ideology". The system reply only makes sense (to Searle) if one assumes that any "system" can have consciousness, just by virtue of being a system with the right behavior and functional parts. This assumption, he argues, is not tenable given our experience of consciousness.

Question: Was Searle right about his opponents' use of intuition?
Answer: NO

Question: Does Searle's opponent have a valid stance?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Searle's opponents continue to use their intuition?
Answer: NO
Passage: Searle argues that his critics are also relying on intuitions, however his opponents' intuitions are theoretical. He writes that, in order to consider the "system reply" as remotely plausible, a person must be "under the grip of an ideology". The system reply only makes sense (to Searle) if one assumes that any "system" can have consciousness, just by virtue of being a system with the right behavior and functional parts. This assumption, he argues, is not tenable given our experience of consciousness.

Question: Was Searle right about his opponents' use of intuition?
Answer: NO

Question: Does Searle's opponent have a valid stance?
Answer: NO

Question: Should Searle's opponents continue to use their intuition?
Answer: NO
Passage: Searle argues that his critics should no longer rely on intuitions, however his opponents' intuitions have empirical basis. He writes that, in order to consider the "system reply" as remotely plausible, a person must be "under the grip of an ideology". The system reply only makes sense (to Searle) if one assumes that any "system" can have consciousness, just by virtue of being a system with the right behavior and functional parts. This assumption, he argues, is not tenable given our experience of consciousness.

Question: Was Searle right about his opponents' use of intuition?
Answer: NO

Question: Does Searle's opponent have a valid stance?
Answer: YES

Question: Should Searle's opponents continue to use their intuition?
Answer: YES
Passage: Searle argues that his critics are also relying on intuitions, however his opponents' intuitions have empirical basis. He writes that, in order to consider the "system reply" as remotely plausible, a person must be "under the grip of an ideology". The system reply only makes sense (to Searle) if one assumes that any "system" can have consciousness, just by virtue of being a system with the right behavior and functional parts. This assumption, he argues, is not tenable given our experience of consciousness.

Question: Was Searle right about his opponents' use of intuition?
Answer: NO

Question: Does Searle's opponent have a valid stance?
Answer: YES

Question: Should Searle's opponents continue to use their intuition?
Answer: YES
Passage: Nimoy also came up with the concept of the "Vulcan nerve pinch", which he suggested as a replacement for the scripted knock out method of using the butt of his phaser. He wanted a more sophisticated way of rendering a person unconscious. Nimoy explained to the show's director that Spock had, per the story, gone to the Vulcan Institute of Technology and had studied human anatomy. Spock also had the ability to project a unique form of energy through his fingertips. Nimoy explained the idea of putting his hand on his neck and shoulder to Shatner, and they rehearsed it. Nimoy credits Shatner's acting during the "pinch" that sold the idea and made it work on screen.

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person notice things going on around them?
Answer: NO

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person's senses be heightened?
Answer: NO

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person be more vulnerable to enemies?
Answer: YES
Passage: Nimoy also came up with the concept of the "Vulcan nerve pinch", which he suggested as a replacement for the scripted knock out method of using the butt of his phaser. He wanted a more sophisticated way of knocking a person out . Nimoy explained to the show's director that Spock had, per the story, gone to the Vulcan Institute of Technology and had studied human anatomy. Spock also had the ability to project a unique form of energy through his fingertips. Nimoy explained the idea of putting his hand on his neck and shoulder to Shatner, and they rehearsed it. Nimoy credits Shatner's acting during the "pinch" that sold the idea and made it work on screen.

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person notice things going on around them?
Answer: NO

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person's senses be heightened?
Answer: NO

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person be more vulnerable to enemies?
Answer: YES
Passage: Nimoy also came up with the concept of the "Vulcan nerve pinch", which he suggested as a replacement for the scripted wakening method of using the butt of his phaser. He wanted a more sophisticated way of waking up an unconscious person. Nimoy explained to the show's director that Spock had, per the story, gone to the Vulcan Institute of Technology and had studied human anatomy. Spock also had the ability to project a unique form of energy through his fingertips. Nimoy explained the idea of putting his hand on his neck and shoulder to Shatner, and they rehearsed it. Nimoy credits Shatner's acting during the "pinch" that sold the idea and made it work on screen.

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person notice things going on around them?
Answer: YES

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person's senses be heightened?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person be more vulnerable to enemies?
Answer: NO
Passage: Nimoy also came up with the concept of the "Vulcan nerve pinch", which he suggested as a replacement for the scripted method of using the butt of his phaser. He wanted a more sophisticated way of bringing a person to a state of alertness. Nimoy explained to the show's director that Spock had, per the story, gone to the Vulcan Institute of Technology and had studied human anatomy. Spock also had the ability to project a unique form of energy through his fingertips. Nimoy explained the idea of putting his hand on his neck and shoulder to Shatner, and they rehearsed it. Nimoy credits Shatner's acting during the "pinch" that sold the idea and made it work on screen.

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person notice things going on around them?
Answer: YES

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person's senses be heightened?
Answer: YES

Question: After a Vulcan nerve pinch, would a person be more vulnerable to enemies?
Answer: NO
Passage: Using Chip Douglas again to produce, "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd.", released in November 1967 was the Monkees' fourth No. 1 album in a row, staying at No. 1 for 5 weeks, and was also their last No. 1 album. It featured the hit single "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (#3 on charts) b/w "Words" (#11 on charts), the A-side had Nesmith on electric guitar/backing vocals, Tork on piano/backing vocals, Dolenz on lead vocals and possibly guitar and Jones on backing vocals; the B-side had Micky and Peter alternating lead vocals, Peter played organ, Mike played guitar, percussion, and provided backing vocals, and Davy provided percussion and backing vocals. Other notable items about this album is that it features an early use of the Moog synthesizer on two tracks, the Nesmith-penned "Daily Nightly", along with "Star Collector". All of its songs, except for two, were featured on the Monkees' television show during the second season.

Question: If an avid viewer of the Monkees' TV series were to purchase this album, would they hear any new material?
Answer: YES

Question: Knowing that this album's original release had thirteen tracks, would you expect the second season of the TV series to have more or fewer than twelve regular episodes, assuming that there was one musical number per episode?
Answer: Fewer

Question: Is it possible that one or two songwriters received publishing credit and royalties that the otherwise would not have received if this album was not released alongside the second season of the TV show?
Answer: YES
Passage: Using Chip Douglas again to produce, "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn &amp; Jones Ltd.", released in November 1967 was the Monkees' fourth No. 1 album in a row, staying at No. 1 for 5 weeks, and was also their last No. 1 album. It featured the hit single "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (#3 on charts) b/w "Words" (#11 on charts), the A-side had Nesmith on electric guitar/backing vocals, Tork on piano/backing vocals, Dolenz on lead vocals and possibly guitar and Jones on backing vocals; the B-side had Micky and Peter alternating lead vocals, Peter played organ, Mike played guitar, percussion, and provided backing vocals, and Davy provided percussion and backing vocals. Other notable items about this album is that it features an early use of the Moog synthesizer on two tracks, the Nesmith-penned "Daily Nightly", along with "Star Collector". With only two exceptions, the album's entire list of songs were played on the second season of the band's tv show.

Question: If an avid viewer of the Monkees' TV series were to purchase this album, would they hear any new material?
Answer: YES

Question: Knowing that this album's original release had thirteen tracks, would you expect the second season of the TV series to have more or fewer than twelve regular episodes, assuming that there was one musical number per episode?
Answer: Fewer

Question: Is it possible that one or two songwriters received publishing credit and royalties that the otherwise would not have received if this album was not released alongside the second season of the TV show?
Answer: YES
Passage: Using Chip Douglas again to produce, "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn &amp; Jones Ltd.", released in November 1967 was the Monkees' fourth No. 1 album in a row, staying at No. 1 for 5 weeks, and was also their last No. 1 album. It featured the hit single "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (#3 on charts) b/w "Words" (#11 on charts), the A-side had Nesmith on electric guitar/backing vocals, Tork on piano/backing vocals, Dolenz on lead vocals and possibly guitar and Jones on backing vocals; the B-side had Micky and Peter alternating lead vocals, Peter played organ, Mike played guitar, percussion, and provided backing vocals, and Davy provided percussion and backing vocals. Other notable items about this album is that it features an early use of the Moog synthesizer on two tracks, the Nesmith-penned "Daily Nightly", along with "Star Collector". All of its songs were featured on the Monkees' television show during the second season, which had music in every episode except for the behind-the-scenes special.

Question: If an avid viewer of the Monkees' TV series were to purchase this album, would they hear any new material?
Answer: NO

Question: Knowing that this album's original release had thirteen tracks, would you expect the second season of the TV series to have more or fewer than twelve regular episodes, assuming that there was one musical number per episode?
Answer: More

Question: Is it possible that one or two songwriters received publishing credit and royalties that the otherwise would not have received if this album was not released alongside the second season of the TV show?
Answer: NO
Passage: Using Chip Douglas again to produce, "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn &amp; Jones Ltd.", released in November 1967 was the Monkees' fourth No. 1 album in a row, staying at No. 1 for 5 weeks, and was also their last No. 1 album. It featured the hit single "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (#3 on charts) b/w "Words" (#11 on charts), the A-side had Nesmith on electric guitar/backing vocals, Tork on piano/backing vocals, Dolenz on lead vocals and possibly guitar and Jones on backing vocals; the B-side had Micky and Peter alternating lead vocals, Peter played organ, Mike played guitar, percussion, and provided backing vocals, and Davy provided percussion and backing vocals. Other notable items about this album is that it features an early use of the Moog synthesizer on two tracks, the Nesmith-penned "Daily Nightly", along with "Star Collector". All of its songs were featured on the Monkees' television show during the second season.

Question: If an avid viewer of the Monkees' TV series were to purchase this album, would they hear any new material?
Answer: NO

Question: Knowing that this album's original release had thirteen tracks, would you expect the second season of the TV series to have more or fewer than twelve regular episodes, assuming that there was one musical number per episode?
Answer: More

Question: Is it possible that one or two songwriters received publishing credit and royalties that the otherwise would not have received if this album was not released alongside the second season of the TV show?
Answer: NO
Passage: In penal theory and the philosophy of punishment, parsimony refers specifically to taking care in the distribution of punishment in order to avoid excessive punishment. In the utilitarian approach to the philosophy of punishment, Jeremy Bentham's "parsimony principle" states that any punishment greater than is required to achieve its end is unjust. The concept is related but not identical to the legal concept of proportionality. Parsimony is a key consideration of the modern restorative justice, and is a component of utilitarian approaches to punishment, as well as the prison abolition movement. Bentham believed that true parsimony would require punishment to be individualised to take account of the sensibility of the individual—an individual more sensitive to punishment should be given a proportionately lesser one, since otherwise needless pain would be inflicted. Later utilitarian writers have tended to abandon this idea, in large part due to the impracticality of determining each alleged criminal's relative sensitivity to specific punishments.

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave different sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it likely that the majority of legal scholars would have fundamental issues with the utilitarian approach to punishment?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave identical sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: NO
Passage: In penal theory and the philosophy of punishment, parsimony refers specifically to taking care in the distribution of punishment in order to avoid excessive punishment. In the utilitarian approach to the philosophy of punishment, Jeremy Bentham's "parsimony principle" states that any punishment greater than is required to achieve its end is wrong. The concept is related but not identical to the legal concept of proportionality. Parsimony is a key consideration of the modern restorative justice, and is a component of utilitarian approaches to punishment, as well as the prison abolition movement. Bentham believed that true parsimony would require punishment to be individualised to take account of the sensibility of the individual—an individual more sensitive to punishment should be given a proportionately lesser one, since otherwise needless pain would be inflicted. Later utilitarian writers have tended to abandon this idea, in large part due to the impracticality of determining each alleged criminal's relative sensitivity to specific punishments.

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave different sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it likely that the majority of legal scholars would have fundamental issues with the utilitarian approach to punishment?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave identical sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: NO
Passage: In penal theory and the philosophy of punishment, parsimony refers specifically to taking care in the distribution of punishment in order to avoid excessive punishment. In the unjust utilitarian approach to the philosophy of punishment, Jeremy Bentham's "parsimony principle" states that any punishment greater than is required to achieve its end is still just. The concept is related but not identical to the legal concept of proportionality. Parsimony is a key consideration of the modern restorative justice, and is a component of utilitarian approaches to punishment, as well as the prison abolition movement. Bentham believed that true parsimony wouldn't require punishment to be individualised to take account of the sensibility of the individual—an individual more sensitive to punishment shouldn't necessarily be given a proportionately lesser one even if needless pain would be inflicted. Later utilitarian writers have tended to abandon this idea, in large part due to the practicality of determining each alleged criminal's relative sensitivity to specific punishments.

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave different sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it likely that the majority of legal scholars would have fundamental issues with the utilitarian approach to punishment?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a judge be utilizing Jeremy Bentham's philosophy if they gave identical sentences to two different people who committed the exact same crime?
Answer: YES