Premise:
"Although room exists for considerable judgment in determining the content of reports, those that are fact-based, but still concise, are likely to achieve greater results."
Hypothesis: Reports that are fact-based are more likely to achieve great results.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

yes

input question: Were Sam, Cokie, and George demonstrating their superior news judgment or staging a pissy fit? If this premise is true, does that tell us:"Sam, Cokie, and George were arguing."?

OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

output answer: yes

Question:
Based on the premise "huh what's that about", can we conclude that "I don't know what that is about."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: She may have thought, however, that she was giving him another chance and that he was promising, in exchange, to do better.

Sentence B: The guy may not have done better after promising to change.

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

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Question: huh boy you you like basketball though don't you
Do you like baseball and basketball?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Problem: Here is a premise:
A literary critic's biography of the 18 th -century satirical English painter wins praise for bringing [her] subject and his milieu alive (Bruce Cook, the Washington Post Book World ). The critics accept Uglow's revisionist claim that Hogarth's famous moralizing was accompanied by a prurient fixation on sex.

Here is a hypothesis:
Critics do not accept Uglow's claims.

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

Answer:
no