lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: Despite being counted as one of the 28 cities of Sub-Roman Britain, it seems that after the Romans left Britain in 410 Durovernum Cantiacorum was abandoned for around 100 years, save a few farmers and gradually decayed. Over the next 100 ;years, an Anglo-Saxon community formed within the city walls, as Jutish refugees arrived, possibly intermarrying with the locals. In 597, Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to convert its King Æthelberht to Christianity. After the conversion, Canterbury, being a Roman town, was chosen by Augustine as the centre for his episcopal see in Kent, and an abbey and cathedral were built. Augustine thus became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. The town's new importance led to its revival, and trades developed in pottery, textiles, and leather. By 630, gold coins were being struck at the Canterbury mint. In 672, the Synod of Hertford gave the see of Canterbury authority over the entire English Church.

Question: If someone was looking to start farming somewhere between 410 and 510, would Durovernum Cantiacorum be a good place to look?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: If a traveler sometime between 410 and 510 wanted to trade for some produce, could they try that in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: YES

Question: If a farmer outside Durovernum Cantiacorum around 410 to 510 was looking for help from other farmers, could they find one in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: YES
Passage: Despite being counted as one of the 28 cities of Sub-Roman Britain, it seems that after the Romans left Britain in 410 Durovernum Cantiacorum was abandoned for around 100 years, except by a single farmer and gradually decayed. Over the next 100 ;years, an Anglo-Saxon community formed within the city walls, as Jutish refugees arrived, possibly intermarrying with the locals. In 597, Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to convert its King Æthelberht to Christianity. After the conversion, Canterbury, being a Roman town, was chosen by Augustine as the centre for his episcopal see in Kent, and an abbey and cathedral were built. Augustine thus became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. The town's new importance led to its revival, and trades developed in pottery, textiles, and leather. By 630, gold coins were being struck at the Canterbury mint. In 672, the Synod of Hertford gave the see of Canterbury authority over the entire English Church.

Question: If someone was looking to start farming somewhere between 410 and 510, would Durovernum Cantiacorum be a good place to look?
Answer: YES

Question: If a traveler sometime between 410 and 510 wanted to trade for some produce, could they try that in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: YES

Question: If a farmer outside Durovernum Cantiacorum around 410 to 510 was looking for help from other farmers, could they find one in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: YES
Passage: Despite being counted as one of the 28 cities of Sub-Roman Britain, it seems that after the Romans left Britain in 410 Durovernum Cantiacorum was abandoned for around 100 years, including the farmers and gradually decayed. Over the next 100 ;years, an Anglo-Saxon community formed within the city walls, as Jutish refugees arrived, possibly intermarrying with the locals. In 597, Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to convert its King Æthelberht to Christianity. After the conversion, Canterbury, being a Roman town, was chosen by Augustine as the centre for his episcopal see in Kent, and an abbey and cathedral were built. Augustine thus became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. The town's new importance led to its revival, and trades developed in pottery, textiles, and leather. By 630, gold coins were being struck at the Canterbury mint. In 672, the Synod of Hertford gave the see of Canterbury authority over the entire English Church.

Question: If someone was looking to start farming somewhere between 410 and 510, would Durovernum Cantiacorum be a good place to look?
Answer: YES

Question: If a traveler sometime between 410 and 510 wanted to trade for some produce, could they try that in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: NO

Question: If a farmer outside Durovernum Cantiacorum around 410 to 510 was looking for help from other farmers, could they find one in Durovernum Cantiacorum?
Answer: NO
Passage: Since 1969, Jersey and Guernsey have operated postal administrations independently of the UK's Royal Mail, with their own postage stamps, which can be used for postage only in their respective Bailiwicks. UK stamps are no longer valid, but mail to the islands, and to the Isle of Man, is charged at UK inland rates. It was not until the early 1990s that the islands joined the UK's postcode system, Jersey postcodes using the initials JE and Guernsey GY.

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be accepted?
Answer: NO

Question: Would mailing a package to Guernsey cost the same as mailing it to somewhere in inland UK?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be denied?
Answer: YES
Passage: Since 1969, Jersey and Guernsey have operated postal administrations independently of the UK's Royal Mail, with their own postage stamps, which can be used for postage only in their respective Bailiwicks. UK stamps are declined, but mail to the islands, and to the Isle of Man, is charged at UK inland rates. It was not until the early 1990s that the islands joined the UK's postcode system, Jersey postcodes using the initials JE and Guernsey GY.

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be accepted?
Answer: NO

Question: Would mailing a package to Guernsey cost the same as mailing it to somewhere in inland UK?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be denied?
Answer: YES
Passage: Since 1969, Jersey and Guernsey have operated postal administrations independently of the UK's Royal Mail, with their own postage stamps, which can be used for postage only in their respective Bailiwicks. Despite this, UK stamps are also valid, but mail to the islands, and to the Isle of Man, is no longer charged at UK inland rates. It was not until the early 1990s that the islands officially joined the UK's postcode system, Jersey postcodes using the initials JE and Guernsey GY.

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be accepted?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would mailing a package to Guernsey cost the same as mailing it to somewhere in inland UK?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be denied?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Since 1969, Jersey and Guernsey have operated postal administrations independently of the UK's Royal Mail, with their own postage stamps, which can be used for postage only in their respective Bailiwicks. Despite this, UK stamps are also valid, and mail to the islands, and to the Isle of Man, is charged at UK inland rates. It was not until the early 1990s that the islands officially joined the UK's postcode system, Jersey postcodes using the initials JE and Guernsey GY.

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be accepted?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would mailing a package to Guernsey cost the same as mailing it to somewhere in inland UK?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a package mailed to Jersey with UK stamps on it be denied?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: In general, garments were made from silk, wool, or linen depending on your social status and what you could afford. Furthermore, there were laws that specified what kinds of clothing could be worn by whom. The color of the clothing also indicated rank. "Purple colored clothes were used by officials above the third grade; light red were meant for officials above the fifth grade; dark green was limited to the sixth grade and above officials; light green was solely for officials above the seventh grade; dark cyan was exclusive for officials above the eighth grade; light cyan garments adorned officials above the ninth grade. The common people and all those who did not reside in the palace were allowed to wear yellow colored clothes." During this period, China's power, culture, economy, and influence were thriving. As a result, women could afford to wear loose-fitting, wide-sleeved garments. Even lower-class women's robes would have sleeves four to five feet in width.

Question: Would a palace dweller get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: YES

Question: Would someone living outside the palace get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a Chinese commoner get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO
Passage: In general, garments were made from silk, wool, or linen depending on your social status and what you could afford. Furthermore, there were laws that specified what kinds of clothing could be worn by whom. The color of the clothing also indicated rank. "Purple colored clothes were used by officials above the third grade; light red were meant for officials above the fifth grade; dark green was limited to the sixth grade and above officials; light green was solely for officials above the seventh grade; dark cyan was exclusive for officials above the eighth grade; light cyan garments adorned officials above the ninth grade. The common people and all those who resided outside the palace were allowed to wear yellow colored clothes." During this period, China's power, culture, economy, and influence were thriving. As a result, women could afford to wear loose-fitting, wide-sleeved garments. Even lower-class women's robes would have sleeves four to five feet in width.

Question: Would a palace dweller get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: YES

Question: Would someone living outside the palace get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO

Question: Would a Chinese commoner get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO
Passage: In general, garments were made from silk, wool, or linen depending on your social status and what you could afford. Furthermore, there were laws that specified what kinds of clothing could be worn by whom. The color of the clothing also indicated rank. "Purple colored clothes were used by officials above the third grade; light red were meant for officials above the fifth grade; dark green was limited to the sixth grade and above officials; light green was solely for officials above the seventh grade; dark cyan was exclusive for officials above the eighth grade; light cyan garments adorned officials above the ninth grade. The common people and all those who resided outside the palace were not allowed to wear yellow colored clothes." During this period, China's power, culture, economy, and influence were thriving. As a result, women could afford to wear loose-fitting, wide-sleeved garments. Even lower-class women's robes would have sleeves four to five feet in width.

Question: Would a palace dweller get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone living outside the palace get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: YES

Question: Would a Chinese commoner get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: YES
Passage: In general, garments were made from silk, wool, or linen depending on your social status and what you could afford. Furthermore, there were laws that specified what kinds of clothing could be worn by whom. The color of the clothing also indicated rank. "Purple colored clothes were used by officials above the third grade; light red were meant for officials above the fifth grade; dark green was limited to the sixth grade and above officials; light green was solely for officials above the seventh grade; dark cyan was exclusive for officials above the eighth grade; light cyan garments adorned officials above the ninth grade. The common people and all those who resided inside the palace were allowed to wear yellow colored clothes." During this period, China's power, culture, economy, and influence were thriving. As a result, women could afford to wear loose-fitting, wide-sleeved garments. Even lower-class women's robes would have sleeves four to five feet in width.

Question: Would a palace dweller get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone living outside the palace get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would a Chinese commoner get in trouble for wearing yellow clothes?
Answer: NO
Passage: Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender.

Question: Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively?
Answer: YES

Question: If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision?
Answer: YES

Question: Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together?
Answer: NO
Passage: Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". The court's decision in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" held that groups could not exclude members for any reason, such as gender, that had no bearing on the group's own identity.

Question: Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively?
Answer: YES

Question: If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision?
Answer: YES

Question: Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together?
Answer: NO
Passage: Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may exclude people for reasons such as gender, so long as these reasons were fully unrelated to the group's expression.

Question: Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively?
Answer: NO

Question: If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision?
Answer: NO

Question: Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together?
Answer: YES
Passage: Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may not exclude people for in-born characteristics such as gender, unless the reason for such an exclusion was not in any way linked to the group's expression.

Question: Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively?
Answer: NO

Question: If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision?
Answer: NO

Question: Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together?
Answer: YES
Passage: The show further lampooned the controversy surrounding its use of profanity, as well as the media attention surrounding the network show "Chicago Hopes singular use of the word "shit", with the season five premiere "It Hits the Fan", in which the word "shit" is said 162 times without being bleeped for censorship purposes, while also appearing uncensored in written form. In the days following the show's original airing, 5,000 disapproving e-mails were sent to Comedy Central. Despite its 43 uncensored uses of the racial slur "nigger", the season 11 episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" generated relatively little controversy, as most in the black community and the NAACP praised the episode for its context and its comedic way of conveying other races' perceptions of how black people feel when hearing the word.

Question: Given the evolving tolerance for profanity on basic cable in the 2000s and beyond, does this passage make it sound like the networks still took a harder line on racial slurs than they did on other taboos, such as literal four-letter words?
Answer: NO

Question: From what we can learn about the writers' intentions for this episode, is it possible that they might have considered jokes such as a restaurant patron asking for vinegar, or a character chiding the notoriously-selfish Eric Cartman for being "niggardly," with the punchline in both cases being nothing but a deafening beep from viewers' tv speakers?
Answer: NO

Question: Knowing that the NAACP praised the show in this instance, given the circumstances of the episode's airing, would be plausible to assume that the organization might have preferred that the show aired with offensive racial slurs explicitly spoken, as this would represent the show's creative team's original intent?
Answer: NO
Passage: The show further lampooned the controversy surrounding its use of profanity, as well as the media attention surrounding the network show "Chicago Hopes singular use of the word "shit", with the season five premiere "It Hits the Fan", in which the word "shit" is said 162 times without being bleeped for censorship purposes, while also appearing uncensored in written form. In the days following the show's original airing, 5,000 disapproving e-mails were sent to Comedy Central. The eleventh season episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" was broadcast with 43 explicit utterances of the racial slur "nigger", but was relatively uncontroversial since the NAACP and the majority of the black community recognized, and lauded, the broader story and the way that the show was portraying the reactions of other races to black people's feeling upon experiencing such a slur.

Question: Given the evolving tolerance for profanity on basic cable in the 2000s and beyond, does this passage make it sound like the networks still took a harder line on racial slurs than they did on other taboos, such as literal four-letter words?
Answer: NO

Question: From what we can learn about the writers' intentions for this episode, is it possible that they might have considered jokes such as a restaurant patron asking for vinegar, or a character chiding the notoriously-selfish Eric Cartman for being "niggardly," with the punchline in both cases being nothing but a deafening beep from viewers' tv speakers?
Answer: NO

Question: Knowing that the NAACP praised the show in this instance, given the circumstances of the episode's airing, would be plausible to assume that the organization might have preferred that the show aired with offensive racial slurs explicitly spoken, as this would represent the show's creative team's original intent?
Answer: NO