Question:
Based on the premise "And talking about that, son, the reason for it is that something happened to the ingredients.", can we conclude that "Nothing happened to the ingredients, there is no reason for it."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no

Question: Sentence A: We have in some cases stated that when an excepting proviso is found unconstitutional the substantive provisions which it qualifies cannot stand, for to hold otherwise would be to extend the scope of the law . . . so as to embrace [situations] which the legislature passing the statute had, by its very terms, expressly excluded.

Sentence B: We have said that when a proviso is unconstitutional, the provisions it qualifies can still stand.

If sentence A is true, how about sentence B?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: no

Question: As he jumped, he swung his war club back into his palm.
While he jumped he put his club into his palm.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
In anticipation of many program mergers or consolidations due to the reconfiguration of service areas for 2002, LSC, along with the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the Management Information Exchange sponsored a Making Mergers Work workshop during the March ABA/NLADA Equal Justice Conference.

Here is a hypothesis:
LSC sponsored a workshop in NYC for Equal Justice.

Here are the options: OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Sentence 1: But if a protester had shouted your question at Bush, would you have reported who asked the question?

Sentence 2: Would you have reported who asked the question in that situation
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: yes

Premise:
"oh i didn't realize that actually that"
Hypothesis: "Oh, I actually hadn't come to that realization yet."
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
yes