lasha-nlp/CONDAQA huggingface dataset:
Passage: Following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, Gaddafi spoke out in favour of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, then threatened by the Tunisian Revolution. He suggested that Tunisia's people would be satisfied if Ben Ali introduced a "Jamahiriyah" system there. Fearing domestic protest, Libya's government implemented preventive measures by reducing food prices, purging the army leadership of potential defectors, and releasing several Islamist prisoners. This seemed to be a wise decision at the time, as on 17 February 2011, while major protests broke out in nearby countries, there was no noticeable protest against Gaddafi's government. Unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Libya was largely religiously homogeneous and had no strong Islamist movement, but there was widespread dissatisfaction with the corruption and entrenched systems of patronage, while unemployment had reached around 30 per cent.

Question: Does the passage make it sound like international efforts were underway to launch a coordinated action on 2-17-11, perhaps due to the date having some symbolic meaning in Islamic society?
Answer: YES

Question: Could you make a reasonable conclusion that the potential defectors and the political prisoners that Gaddafi released themselves became charismatic agitators, once they were free to speak to the public openly?
Answer: NO

Question: Knowing that Gaddafi was violently removed from power not long after the events in this passage, would political commentators likely have had to change their position on the effectiveness of his conciliatory measures, because what worked temporarily ultimately proved to be insufficient?
Answer: YES
Passage: The scale of warfare dramatically enlarged during the Revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic Wars. During Europe's major pre-revolutionary war, the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763, few armies ever numbered more than 200,000 with field forces often numbering less than 30,000. The French innovations of separate corps (allowing a single commander to efficiently command more than the traditional command span of 30,000 men) and living off the land (which allowed field armies to deploy more men without requiring an equal increase in supply arrangements such as depots and supply trains) allowed the French republic to field much larger armies than their opponents. Napoleon ensured during the time of the French republic that separate French field armies operated as a single army under his control, often allowing him to substantially outnumber his opponents. This forced his continental opponents to also increase the size of their armies, moving away from the traditional small, well-drilled Ancien Régime armies of the 18th century to mass conscript armies.

Question: Were the supply arrangements enough for the deployed men?
Answer: YES

Question: Were the total supply arrangements considered before the field armies decided the number of more men to be deployed?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the deployed men complain about the available supply arrangements?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: The scale of warfare dramatically enlarged during the Revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic Wars. During Europe's major pre-revolutionary war, the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763, few armies ever numbered more than 200,000 with field forces often numbering less than 30,000. The French innovations of separate corps (allowing a single commander to efficiently command more than the traditional command span of 30,000 men) and living off the land (which allowed field armies to deploy more men sans requiring an equal increase in supply arrangements such as depots and supply trains) allowed the French republic to field much larger armies than their opponents. Napoleon ensured during the time of the French republic that separate French field armies operated as a single army under his control, often allowing him to substantially outnumber his opponents. This forced his continental opponents to also increase the size of their armies, moving away from the traditional small, well-drilled Ancien Régime armies of the 18th century to mass conscript armies.

Question: Were the supply arrangements enough for the deployed men?
Answer: YES

Question: Were the total supply arrangements considered before the field armies decided the number of more men to be deployed?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the deployed men complain about the available supply arrangements?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: The scale of warfare dramatically enlarged during the Revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic Wars. During Europe's major pre-revolutionary war, the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763, few armies ever numbered more than 200,000 with field forces often numbering less than 30,000. The French innovations of separate corps (allowing a single commander to efficiently command more than the traditional command span of 30,000 men) and living off the land (without mentioning the field armies who deploy more men which hardly leads to an equal increase in supply arrangements such as depots and supply trains) allowed the French republic to field much larger armies than their opponents. Napoleon ensured during the time of the French republic that separate French field armies operated as a single army under his control, often allowing him to substantially outnumber his opponents. This forced his continental opponents to also increase the size of their armies, moving away from the traditional small, well-drilled Ancien Régime armies of the 18th century to mass conscript armies.

Question: Were the supply arrangements enough for the deployed men?
Answer: YES

Question: Were the total supply arrangements considered before the field armies decided the number of more men to be deployed?
Answer: NO

Question: Did the deployed men complain about the available supply arrangements?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: The scale of warfare dramatically enlarged during the Revolutionary and subsequent Napoleonic Wars. During Europe's major pre-revolutionary war, the Seven Years' War of 1756–1763, few armies ever numbered more than 200,000 with field forces often numbering less than 30,000. The French innovations of separate corps (allowing a single commander to efficiently command more than the traditional command span of 30,000 men) and living off the land (which allowed field armies to deploy more men requiring an equal increase in supply arrangements such as depots and supply trains) allowed the French republic to field much larger armies than their opponents. Napoleon ensured during the time of the French republic that separate French field armies operated as a single army under his control, often allowing him to substantially outnumber his opponents. This forced his continental opponents to also increase the size of their armies, moving away from the traditional small, well-drilled Ancien Régime armies of the 18th century to mass conscript armies.

Question: Were the supply arrangements enough for the deployed men?
Answer: NO

Question: Were the total supply arrangements considered before the field armies decided the number of more men to be deployed?
Answer: YES

Question: Did the deployed men complain about the available supply arrangements?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Elizabeth led the Russian Empire during the two major European conflicts of her time: the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48) and the Seven Years' War (1756–63). She and diplomat Aleksey Bestuzhev-Ryumin solved the first event by forming an alliance with Austria and France, but indirectly caused the second. Russian troops enjoyed several victories against Prussia and briefly occupied Berlin, but when Frederick the Great was finally considering surrender in January 1762, the Russian Empress died.

Question: In 1748, did most nations likely recognize Elizabeth as a primary reason for the ending of the War of Austrian Succession?
Answer: YES

Question: Did Elizabeth likely feel responsible for The Seven Years' War happening?
Answer: NO

Question: In 1757, did most nations likely blame Elizabeth for the start of the Seven Years' War?
Answer: NO
Passage: Elizabeth led the Russian Empire during the two major European conflicts of her time: the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48) and the Seven Years' War (1756–63). She and diplomat Aleksey Bestuzhev-Ryumin solved the first event by forming an alliance with Austria and France, but in a roundabout way caused the second. Russian troops enjoyed several victories against Prussia and briefly occupied Berlin, but when Frederick the Great was finally considering surrender in January 1762, the Russian Empress died.

Question: In 1748, did most nations likely recognize Elizabeth as a primary reason for the ending of the War of Austrian Succession?
Answer: YES

Question: Did Elizabeth likely feel responsible for The Seven Years' War happening?
Answer: NO

Question: In 1757, did most nations likely blame Elizabeth for the start of the Seven Years' War?
Answer: NO
Passage: Elizabeth led the Russian Empire during the two major European conflicts of her time: the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48) and the Seven Years' War (1756–63). She and diplomat Aleksey Bestuzhev-Ryumin indirectly solved the first event by forming an alliance with Austria and France, but directly caused the second. Russian troops enjoyed several victories against Prussia and briefly occupied Berlin, but when Frederick the Great was finally considering surrender in January 1762, the Russian Empress died.

Question: In 1748, did most nations likely recognize Elizabeth as a primary reason for the ending of the War of Austrian Succession?
Answer: NO

Question: Did Elizabeth likely feel responsible for The Seven Years' War happening?
Answer: YES

Question: In 1757, did most nations likely blame Elizabeth for the start of the Seven Years' War?
Answer: YES
Passage: Elizabeth led the Russian Empire during the two major European conflicts of her time: the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48) and the Seven Years' War (1756–63). She and diplomat Aleksey Bestuzhev-Ryumin solved the first event by forming an alliance with Austria and France, but directly caused the second. Russian troops enjoyed several victories against Prussia and briefly occupied Berlin, but when Frederick the Great was finally considering surrender in January 1762, the Russian Empress died.

Question: In 1748, did most nations likely recognize Elizabeth as a primary reason for the ending of the War of Austrian Succession?
Answer: YES

Question: Did Elizabeth likely feel responsible for The Seven Years' War happening?
Answer: YES

Question: In 1757, did most nations likely blame Elizabeth for the start of the Seven Years' War?
Answer: YES
Passage: Hunnic governmental structure has long been debated. Peter Heather argues that the Huns were a disorganized confederation in which leaders acted completely independently and that eventually established a ranking hierarchy, much like Germanic societies. Denis Sinor similarly notes that, with the exception of the historically uncertain Balamber, no Hun leaders are named in the sources until Uldin, indicating their relative unimportance. Thompson argues that permanent kingship only developed with the Huns invasion of Europe and the near constant warfare that followed. Regarding the organization of Hunnic rule under Attila, Peter Golden comments "it can hardly be called a state, much less an empire". Golden speaks instead of a "Hunnic confederacy". Kim, however, argues that the Huns were far more organized and centralized, with some basis in organization of the Xiongnu state. Walter Pohl notes the correspondences of Hunnic government to those of other steppe empires, but nevertheless argues that the Huns do not appear to have been a unified group when they arrived in Europe.

Question: Does Peter Golden contemplate Attila's rule as a state?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Was the Hunnic rule under Atilla a form of empire according to Peter Golden's views?
Answer: NO

Question: If you ask Peter Golden, did Hunnic people live under a kind of rule halfway between a state and an empire?
Answer: NO
Passage: Hunnic governmental structure has long been debated. Peter Heather argues that the Huns were a disorganized confederation in which leaders acted completely independently and that eventually established a ranking hierarchy, much like Germanic societies. Denis Sinor similarly notes that, with the exception of the historically uncertain Balamber, no Hun leaders are named in the sources until Uldin, indicating their relative unimportance. Thompson argues that permanent kingship only developed with the Huns invasion of Europe and the near constant warfare that followed. Regarding the organization of Hunnic rule under Attila, Peter Golden comments "it can barely be called a state, much less an empire". Golden speaks instead of a "Hunnic confederacy". Kim, however, argues that the Huns were far more organized and centralized, with some basis in organization of the Xiongnu state. Walter Pohl notes the correspondences of Hunnic government to those of other steppe empires, but nevertheless argues that the Huns do not appear to have been a unified group when they arrived in Europe.

Question: Does Peter Golden contemplate Attila's rule as a state?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Was the Hunnic rule under Atilla a form of empire according to Peter Golden's views?
Answer: NO

Question: If you ask Peter Golden, did Hunnic people live under a kind of rule halfway between a state and an empire?
Answer: NO
Passage: Hunnic governmental structure has long been debated. Peter Heather argues that the Huns were a disorganized confederation in which leaders acted completely independently and that eventually established a ranking hierarchy, much like Germanic societies. Denis Sinor similarly notes that, with the exception of the historically uncertain Balamber, no Hun leaders are named in the sources until Uldin, indicating their relative unimportance. Thompson argues that permanent kingship only developed with the Huns invasion of Europe and the near constant warfare that followed. Regarding the organization of Hunnic rule under Attila, Peter Golden comments "it can hardly be called a state or an empire". Golden speaks instead of a "Hunnic confederacy". Kim, however, argues that the Huns were far more organized and centralized, with some basis in organization of the Xiongnu state. Walter Pohl notes the correspondences of Hunnic government to those of other steppe empires, but nevertheless argues that the Huns do not appear to have been a unified group when they arrived in Europe.

Question: Does Peter Golden contemplate Attila's rule as a state?
Answer: DON'T KNOW

Question: Was the Hunnic rule under Atilla a form of empire according to Peter Golden's views?
Answer: NO

Question: If you ask Peter Golden, did Hunnic people live under a kind of rule halfway between a state and an empire?
Answer: NO
Passage: Hunnic governmental structure has long been debated. Peter Heather argues that the Huns were a disorganized confederation in which leaders acted completely independently and that eventually established a ranking hierarchy, much like Germanic societies. Denis Sinor similarly notes that, with the exception of the historically uncertain Balamber, no Hun leaders are named in the sources until Uldin, indicating their relative unimportance. Thompson argues that permanent kingship only developed with the Huns invasion of Europe and the near constant warfare that followed. Regarding the organization of Hunnic rule under Attila, Peter Golden comments "it can surely be called a state as much as an empire". Golden speaks instead of a "Hunnic confederacy". Kim, however, argues that the Huns were far more organized and centralized, with some basis in organization of the Xiongnu state. Walter Pohl notes the correspondences of Hunnic government to those of other steppe empires, but nevertheless argues that the Huns do not appear to have been a unified group when they arrived in Europe.

Question: Does Peter Golden contemplate Attila's rule as a state?
Answer: YES

Question: Was the Hunnic rule under Atilla a form of empire according to Peter Golden's views?
Answer: YES

Question: If you ask Peter Golden, did Hunnic people live under a kind of rule halfway between a state and an empire?
Answer: DON'T KNOW
Passage: Buoyed by his defeat to Guillemot, Nurmi's races became a series of experiments which he analyzed meticulously. Previously known for his blistering pace on the first few laps, Nurmi started to carry a stopwatch and spread his efforts more uniformly over the distance. He aimed to perfect his technique and tactics to a point where the performances of his rivals would be rendered meaningless. Nurmi set his first world record on the 10,000 m in Stockholm in 1921. In 1922, he broke the world records for the 2000 m, the 3000 m and the 5000 m. A year later, Nurmi added the records for the 1500 m and the mile. His feat of holding the world records for the mile, the 5000 m and the 10,000 m at the same time has not been matched by any other athlete before or since. Nurmi also tested his speed in the 800 m, winning the 1923 Finnish Championships with a new national record. After excelling in mathematics, Nurmi graduated as an engineer in 1923 and returned home to prepare for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if you saw a news report that claimed that an Ironman Triathlete had just broken the world record for "all three events", would you have to assume that the article was badly misprinted, and that the author meant to say that the total time was a new record?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone who had little knowledge of Olympic records, yet saw Michael Phelps's impressive haul of gold medals have reason to seriously wonder if Phelps held onto four or more world records in swimming from his performance in those same games?
Answer: YES

Question: Focusing strictly on Numi's sport of track running, does the passage make it sound like runners have grown more specialized since the 1920s, and thus place less emphasis on trying to set world-beating times in a variety of distances?
Answer: YES
Passage: Buoyed by his defeat to Guillemot, Nurmi's races became a series of experiments which he analyzed meticulously. Previously known for his blistering pace on the first few laps, Nurmi started to carry a stopwatch and spread his efforts more uniformly over the distance. He aimed to perfect his technique and tactics to a point where the performances of his rivals would be rendered meaningless. Nurmi set his first world record on the 10,000 m in Stockholm in 1921. In 1922, he broke the world records for the 2000 m, the 3000 m and the 5000 m. A year later, Nurmi added the records for the 1500 m and the mile. No other athlete at any other time has been able to simultaneously hold onto the world records for the 10,000 meter, 5,000 meter, and the mile run, as Numi did. Nurmi also tested his speed in the 800 m, winning the 1923 Finnish Championships with a new national record. After excelling in mathematics, Nurmi graduated as an engineer in 1923 and returned home to prepare for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if you saw a news report that claimed that an Ironman Triathlete had just broken the world record for "all three events", would you have to assume that the article was badly misprinted, and that the author meant to say that the total time was a new record?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone who had little knowledge of Olympic records, yet saw Michael Phelps's impressive haul of gold medals have reason to seriously wonder if Phelps held onto four or more world records in swimming from his performance in those same games?
Answer: YES

Question: Focusing strictly on Numi's sport of track running, does the passage make it sound like runners have grown more specialized since the 1920s, and thus place less emphasis on trying to set world-beating times in a variety of distances?
Answer: YES
Passage: Buoyed by his defeat to Guillemot, Nurmi's races became a series of experiments which he analyzed meticulously. Previously known for his blistering pace on the first few laps, Nurmi started to carry a stopwatch and spread his efforts more uniformly over the distance. He aimed to perfect his technique and tactics to a point where the performances of his rivals would be rendered meaningless. Nurmi set his first world record on the 10,000 m in Stockholm in 1921. In 1922, he broke the world records for the 2000 m, the 3000 m and the 5000 m. A year later, Nurmi added the records for the 1500 m and the mile. His feat of holding the world records for the mile, the 5000 m and the 10,000 m at the same time has been matched by two other runners since, but no athlete in any sport has exceeded the tally of three simultaneous official world records. Nurmi also tested his speed in the 800 m, winning the 1923 Finnish Championships with a new national record. After excelling in mathematics, Nurmi graduated as an engineer in 1923 and returned home to prepare for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if you saw a news report that claimed that an Ironman Triathlete had just broken the world record for "all three events", would you have to assume that the article was badly misprinted, and that the author meant to say that the total time was a new record?
Answer: YES

Question: Would someone who had little knowledge of Olympic records, yet saw Michael Phelps's impressive haul of gold medals have reason to seriously wonder if Phelps held onto four or more world records in swimming from his performance in those same games?
Answer: NO

Question: Focusing strictly on Numi's sport of track running, does the passage make it sound like runners have grown more specialized since the 1920s, and thus place less emphasis on trying to set world-beating times in a variety of distances?
Answer: NO
Passage: Buoyed by his defeat to Guillemot, Nurmi's races became a series of experiments which he analyzed meticulously. Previously known for his blistering pace on the first few laps, Nurmi started to carry a stopwatch and spread his efforts more uniformly over the distance. He aimed to perfect his technique and tactics to a point where the performances of his rivals would be rendered meaningless. Nurmi set his first world record on the 10,000 m in Stockholm in 1921. In 1922, he broke the world records for the 2000 m, the 3000 m and the 5000 m. A year later, Nurmi added the records for the 1500 m and the mile. His feat of holding the world records for the mile, the 5000 m and the 10,000 m at the same time was unprecedented in 1922, but has been matched since, and his tally of three concurrent official records has since been exceeded by runners and athletes in other sports. Nurmi also tested his speed in the 800 m, winning the 1923 Finnish Championships with a new national record. After excelling in mathematics, Nurmi graduated as an engineer in 1923 and returned home to prepare for the upcoming Olympic Games.

Question: From the way that this passage is written, if you saw a news report that claimed that an Ironman Triathlete had just broken the world record for "all three events", would you have to assume that the article was badly misprinted, and that the author meant to say that the total time was a new record?
Answer: NO

Question: Would someone who had little knowledge of Olympic records, yet saw Michael Phelps's impressive haul of gold medals have reason to seriously wonder if Phelps held onto four or more world records in swimming from his performance in those same games?
Answer: YES

Question: Focusing strictly on Numi's sport of track running, does the passage make it sound like runners have grown more specialized since the 1920s, and thus place less emphasis on trying to set world-beating times in a variety of distances?
Answer: NO