Question:
Based on the premise "Instead of categorically defending a woman's right to an abortion, they have chosen to challenge pro-lifers on the pro-lifers' turf.", can we conclude that "They have chosen to challenge pro-lifers instead of defending a woman's right to abortion, which is harder to do on pro-lifers turf."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Question: Sentence A: oh no problem well take care bye bye

Sentence B: That's not a problem, take care.

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

Answer: yes

Question: The jury found Moore guilty of violating the Unlawful Detainer Assistance Act and of practicing law without a license and acting with fraud, malice, or oppression.
The jury was deadlocked and could not reach a verdict.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: no

Problem: Here is a premise:
They simply are!

Here is a hypothesis:
They are.

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

Answer: yes

Sentence 1: As in Hirosema, one of the most moving monuments is a single piece of masonry left standing.

Sentence 2: Hirosema only has a single piece of old masonry left.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: yes

Premise:
"Quibbling that evil leaders are to blame, not the institution of government itself, is a pathetic evasion, reminiscent of an NRA bumper sticker that reads, Governments don't kill people, only criminal leaders kill people."
Hypothesis: It is considered courageous to think that evil leaders, not the government, are responsible.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
no