lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: The first Q-ship victory was on 23 June 1915, when the submarine HMS "C24", cooperating with the decoy vessel "Taranaki", commanded by Lieutenant Frederick Henry Taylor CBE DSC RN, sank "U-40" off Eyemouth. The first victory by an unassisted Q-ship came on 24 July 1915 when "Prince Charles", commanded by Lieutenant Mark-Wardlaw, DSO, sank "U-36". The civilian crew of "Prince Charles" received a cash award. The following month an even smaller converted fishing trawler renamed HM Armed Smack "Inverlyon" successfully destroyed near Great Yarmouth. The "Inverlyon" was a sailing vessel, without any engines, to which a small 47-mm gun was fitted which could fire a 3-pound round. The British crew fired nine rounds from their 3-pounder into "UB-4" at close range, sinking her with the loss of all hands despite the attempt of "Inverlyon"s skipper to rescue one surviving German submariner.

Question: Given the relatively light armament on the Inverlyon, does it sound like the maximum engine size that could be fit into such a vessel was a limiting factor on how much firepower she could wield?
Answer: NO

Question: Although Inverlyon was successful in this mission, could it have turned out differently depending on the way the wind blew that day?
Answer: YES

Question: If Inverlyon found herself in the literal doldrums during a mission, could her commander have made a timely escape without assistance from any other craft?
Answer: NO
Passage: The first Q-ship victory was on 23 June 1915, when the submarine HMS "C24", cooperating with the decoy vessel "Taranaki", commanded by Lieutenant Frederick Henry Taylor CBE DSC RN, sank "U-40" off Eyemouth. The first victory by an unassisted Q-ship came on 24 July 1915 when "Prince Charles", commanded by Lieutenant Mark-Wardlaw, DSO, sank "U-36". The civilian crew of "Prince Charles" received a cash award. The following month an even smaller converted fishing trawler renamed HM Armed Smack "Inverlyon" successfully destroyed a U-Boat near Great Yarmouth. Although made to look like an unpowered sailing ship, the "Inverlyon" was retrofitted with a diesel engine and a small 47-mm, 3-pounder gun. The British crew fired nine rounds from their 3-pounder into "UB-4" at close range, sinking her with the loss of all hands despite the attempt of "Inverlyon"s skipper to rescue one surviving German submariner.

Question: Given the relatively light armament on the Inverlyon, does it sound like the maximum engine size that could be fit into such a vessel was a limiting factor on how much firepower she could wield?
Answer: YES

Question: Although Inverlyon was successful in this mission, could it have turned out differently depending on the way the wind blew that day?
Answer: NO

Question: If Inverlyon found herself in the literal doldrums during a mission, could her commander have made a timely escape without assistance from any other craft?
Answer: YES
Passage: The first Q-ship victory was on 23 June 1915, when the submarine HMS "C24", cooperating with the decoy vessel "Taranaki", commanded by Lieutenant Frederick Henry Taylor CBE DSC RN, sank "U-40" off Eyemouth. The first victory by an unassisted Q-ship came on 24 July 1915 when "Prince Charles", commanded by Lieutenant Mark-Wardlaw, DSO, sank "U-36". The civilian crew of "Prince Charles" received a cash award. The following month an even smaller converted fishing trawler renamed HM Armed Smack "Inverlyon" successfully destroyed a U-Boat near Great Yarmouth. Inverlyon's small diesel engine had been upgraded for better performance, and she was fitted with a small 3 pounder (47 mm) gun. The British crew fired nine rounds from their 3-pounder into "UB-4" at close range, sinking her with the loss of all hands despite the attempt of "Inverlyon"s skipper to rescue one surviving German submariner.

Question: Given the relatively light armament on the Inverlyon, does it sound like the maximum engine size that could be fit into such a vessel was a limiting factor on how much firepower she could wield?
Answer: YES

Question: Although Inverlyon was successful in this mission, could it have turned out differently depending on the way the wind blew that day?
Answer: NO

Question: If Inverlyon found herself in the literal doldrums during a mission, could her commander have made a timely escape without assistance from any other craft?
Answer: YES
Passage: After 1945, proposals to introduce tolls to the seaway were not sufficient to gain support for the project by the U.S. Congress. Growing impatient, and with Ontario desperate for the power to be generated by hydroelectricity, Canada began to consider developing the project alone. This seized the imagination of Canadians, engendering a groundswell of nationalism around the St. Lawrence. Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent advised U.S. President Harry S. Truman on September 28, 1951, that Canada was unwilling to wait for the United States and would build a seaway alone; the Canadian Parliament authorized the founding of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on December 21 of that year. Fueled by this support, Saint Laurent's administration decided during 1951 and 1952 to construct the waterway alone, combined with the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. (This became the joint responsibility of Ontario and New York: as a hydropower dam would change the water levels, it required bilateral cooperation.)

Question: After the September 28, 1951 message, is it likely that Truman thought the United States had time to make a decision regarding the waterway?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Truman probably shocked by the Canadian Parliament's authorization of the waterway on December 21?
Answer: NO

Question: Is there any indication that St. Laurent was misrepresenting Canada's willingness to cooperate with the United States on the waterway?
Answer: NO
Passage: After 1945, proposals to introduce tolls to the seaway were not sufficient to gain support for the project by the U.S. Congress. Growing impatient, and with Ontario desperate for the power to be generated by hydroelectricity, Canada began to consider developing the project alone. This seized the imagination of Canadians, engendering a groundswell of nationalism around the St. Lawrence. Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent advised U.S. President Harry S. Truman on September 28, 1951, that Canada was reluctant to wait for the United States and would build a seaway alone; the Canadian Parliament authorized the founding of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on December 21 of that year. Fueled by this support, Saint Laurent's administration decided during 1951 and 1952 to construct the waterway alone, combined with the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. (This became the joint responsibility of Ontario and New York: as a hydropower dam would change the water levels, it required bilateral cooperation.)

Question: After the September 28, 1951 message, is it likely that Truman thought the United States had time to make a decision regarding the waterway?
Answer: NO

Question: Was Truman probably shocked by the Canadian Parliament's authorization of the waterway on December 21?
Answer: NO

Question: Is there any indication that St. Laurent was misrepresenting Canada's willingness to cooperate with the United States on the waterway?
Answer: NO
Passage: After 1945, proposals to introduce tolls to the seaway were not sufficient to gain support for the project by the U.S. Congress. Growing impatient, and with Ontario desperate for the power to be generated by hydroelectricity, Canada began to consider developing the project alone. This seized the imagination of Canadians, engendering a groundswell of nationalism around the St. Lawrence. Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent advised U.S. President Harry S. Truman on September 28, 1951, that Canada wanted to wait for the United States and would be unwilling to build a seaway alone; however, the Canadian Parliament authorized the founding of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on December 21 of that year. Fueled by this support, Saint Laurent's administration decided during 1951 and 1952 to construct the waterway alone, combined with the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. (This became the joint responsibility of Ontario and New York: as a hydropower dam would change the water levels, it required bilateral cooperation.)

Question: After the September 28, 1951 message, is it likely that Truman thought the United States had time to make a decision regarding the waterway?
Answer: YES

Question: Was Truman probably shocked by the Canadian Parliament's authorization of the waterway on December 21?
Answer: YES

Question: Is there any indication that St. Laurent was misrepresenting Canada's willingness to cooperate with the United States on the waterway?
Answer: YES
Passage: After 1945, proposals to introduce tolls to the seaway were not sufficient to gain support for the project by the U.S. Congress. Growing impatient, and with Ontario desperate for the power to be generated by hydroelectricity, Canada began to consider developing the project alone. This seized the imagination of Canadians, engendering a groundswell of nationalism around the St. Lawrence. Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent advised U.S. President Harry S. Truman on September 28, 1951, that Canada preferred to wait for the United States, but would build a seaway alone if necessary; the Canadian Parliament authorized the founding of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on December 21 of that year. Fueled by this support, Saint Laurent's administration decided during 1951 and 1952 to construct the waterway alone, combined with the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. (This became the joint responsibility of Ontario and New York: as a hydropower dam would change the water levels, it required bilateral cooperation.)

Question: After the September 28, 1951 message, is it likely that Truman thought the United States had time to make a decision regarding the waterway?
Answer: YES

Question: Was Truman probably shocked by the Canadian Parliament's authorization of the waterway on December 21?
Answer: NO

Question: Is there any indication that St. Laurent was misrepresenting Canada's willingness to cooperate with the United States on the waterway?
Answer: NO
Passage: Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites held that he and his demons constantly oppose and thwart the human race, as it was on their account the devil was cast down into this world. According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order of "spiritual" beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being a "spirit" of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.

Question: Did the devil and humans get along?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the Ophites believe the devil and his demons were frustrating humans?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the humans want the devil to be stuck in Hell?
Answer: YES
Passage: Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites asserted that the devil and his demons were constantly fighting against and frustrating humans, due to their reports that banished the devil to Hell. According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order of "spiritual" beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being a "spirit" of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.

Question: Did the devil and humans get along?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the Ophites believe the devil and his demons were frustrating humans?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the humans want the devil to be stuck in Hell?
Answer: YES
Passage: Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites would always oppose the assertion that the devil and his demons were constantly frustrating humans, due to their reports that banished the devil to Hell. According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order of "spiritual" beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being a "spirit" of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.

Question: Did the devil and humans get along?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the Ophites believe the devil and his demons were frustrating humans?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the humans want the devil to be stuck in Hell?
Answer: YES
Passage: Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites asserted that the devil and his demons were friendly and cooperative with humans, due to their reports that appeared to oppose the devil being banished to Hell. According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order of "spiritual" beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being a "spirit" of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.

Question: Did the devil and humans get along?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the Ophites believe the devil and his demons were frustrating humans?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the humans want the devil to be stuck in Hell?
Answer: NO
Passage: A major concern for Kissinger was the possibility of Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf. In April 1969, Iraq came into conflict with Iran when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi renounced the 1937 treaty governing the Shatt-al-Arab river. After two years of skirmishes along the border, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr broke off diplomatic relations with Iran on December 1, 1971. In May 1972, Nixon and Kissinger visited Tehran to tell the Shah that there would be no "second-guessing of his requests" to buy American weapons. At the same time, Nixon and Kissinger agreed a plan of the Shah's that the United States together with Iran and Israel would support the Kurdish "peshmerga" guerrillas fighting for independence from Iraq. Kissinger later wrote that after Vietnam, there was no possibility of deploying American forces in the Middle East, and henceforward Iran was to act as America's surrogate in the Persian Gulf. Kissinger described the Baathist regime in Iraq as a potential threat to the United States and believed that building up Iran and supporting the "peshmerga" was the best counterweight.

Question: Would Americans have supported Kissinger's stance on deploying American forces in the Middle East?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Kissinger's strategy in the Middle East have affected American troops directly?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it likely that a majority of American politicians would have supported sending troops to the Middle East?
Answer: NO
Passage: A major concern for Kissinger was the possibility of Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf. In April 1969, Iraq came into conflict with Iran when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi renounced the 1937 treaty governing the Shatt-al-Arab river. After two years of skirmishes along the border, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr broke off diplomatic relations with Iran on December 1, 1971. In May 1972, Nixon and Kissinger visited Tehran to tell the Shah that there would be no "second-guessing of his requests" to buy American weapons. At the same time, Nixon and Kissinger agreed a plan of the Shah's that the United States together with Iran and Israel would support the Kurdish "peshmerga" guerrillas fighting for independence from Iraq. Kissinger later wrote that after Vietnam, there was zero possibility of deploying American forces in the Middle East, and henceforward Iran was to act as America's surrogate in the Persian Gulf. Kissinger described the Baathist regime in Iraq as a potential threat to the United States and believed that building up Iran and supporting the "peshmerga" was the best counterweight.

Question: Would Americans have supported Kissinger's stance on deploying American forces in the Middle East?
Answer: NO

Question: Would Kissinger's strategy in the Middle East have affected American troops directly?
Answer: NO

Question: Is it likely that a majority of American politicians would have supported sending troops to the Middle East?
Answer: NO
Passage: A major concern for Kissinger was the possibility of Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf. In April 1969, Iraq came into conflict with Iran when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi renounced the 1937 treaty governing the Shatt-al-Arab river. After two years of skirmishes along the border, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr broke off diplomatic relations with Iran on December 1, 1971. In May 1972, Nixon and Kissinger visited Tehran to tell the Shah that there would be no "second-guessing of his requests" to buy American weapons. At the same time, Nixon and Kissinger agreed a plan of the Shah's that the United States together with Iran and Israel would support the Kurdish "peshmerga" guerrillas fighting for independence from Iraq. Kissinger later wrote that after Vietnam, there was little possibility of deploying American forces in the Middle East as no one in Washington was willing to suggest it, and henceforward Iran was to act as America's surrogate in the Persian Gulf. Kissinger described the Baathist regime in Iraq as a potential threat to the United States and believed that building up Iran and supporting the "peshmerga" was the best counterweight.

Question: Would Americans have supported Kissinger's stance on deploying American forces in the Middle East?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would Kissinger's strategy in the Middle East have affected American troops directly?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Is it likely that a majority of American politicians would have supported sending troops to the Middle East?
Answer: NO
Passage: A major concern for Kissinger was the possibility of Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf. In April 1969, Iraq came into conflict with Iran when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi renounced the 1937 treaty governing the Shatt-al-Arab river. After two years of skirmishes along the border, President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr broke off diplomatic relations with Iran on December 1, 1971. In May 1972, Nixon and Kissinger visited Tehran to tell the Shah that there would be no "second-guessing of his requests" to buy American weapons. At the same time, Nixon and Kissinger agreed a plan of the Shah's that the United States together with Iran and Israel would support the Kurdish "peshmerga" guerrillas fighting for independence from Iraq. Kissinger later wrote that despite Vietnam, there was certain possibility of deploying American forces in the Middle East, and meanwhile Iran was to act as America's surrogate in the Persian Gulf. Kissinger described the Baathist regime in Iraq as a potential threat to the United States and believed that building up Iran and supporting the "peshmerga" was the best counterweight.

Question: Would Americans have supported Kissinger's stance on deploying American forces in the Middle East?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Would Kissinger's strategy in the Middle East have affected American troops directly?
Answer: YES

Question: Is it likely that a majority of American politicians would have supported sending troops to the Middle East?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: The "snug" was a small private room or area which typically had access to the bar and a frosted glass window, set above head height. A higher price was paid for beer in the snug and nobody could look in and see the drinkers. It was not only the wealthy visitors who would use these rooms. The snug was for patrons who preferred not to be seen in the public bar. Ladies would often enjoy a private drink in the snug in a time when it was frowned upon for women to be in a pub. The local police officer might nip in for a quiet pint, the parish priest for his evening whisky, or lovers for a rendezvous.

Question: From the way the "snug" is described, does it sound similar in purpose to a VIP lounge in a glamorous modern-day night club, a place to have private conversations, but also a place to see and (more importantly) to be seen?
Answer: NO

Question: If a local police officer, or maybe a tax collector or process server wanted to keep an eye out for certain locals who might come into a bar and if possible remain hidden himself (though with priority given to being able to see others) would he be better off sitting at the public bar than in the snug?
Answer: YES

Question: If someone couldn't afford to get inside, but was still interested in the upper-class locals, could they gave upon the latest fashions from one of the windows in the snug's partition?
Answer: NO
Passage: The "snug" was a small private room or area which typically had access to the bar and a frosted glass window, set above head height. Prices for beer were higher in the snug, but people outside of the room could not look in to see who was inside. It was not only the wealthy visitors who would use these rooms. The snug was for patrons who preferred not to be seen in the public bar. Ladies would often enjoy a private drink in the snug in a time when it was frowned upon for women to be in a pub. The local police officer might nip in for a quiet pint, the parish priest for his evening whisky, or lovers for a rendezvous.

Question: From the way the "snug" is described, does it sound similar in purpose to a VIP lounge in a glamorous modern-day night club, a place to have private conversations, but also a place to see and (more importantly) to be seen?
Answer: NO

Question: If a local police officer, or maybe a tax collector or process server wanted to keep an eye out for certain locals who might come into a bar and if possible remain hidden himself (though with priority given to being able to see others) would he be better off sitting at the public bar than in the snug?
Answer: YES

Question: If someone couldn't afford to get inside, but was still interested in the upper-class locals, could they gave upon the latest fashions from one of the windows in the snug's partition?
Answer: NO