Question:
Based on the premise "Who else? ", can we conclude that "Who was the other person?"? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: From a practical perspective, if stock options aren't compensation, what are they?

Sentence B: From a practical perspective, there's no question that stock options aren't compensation at all.

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

Answer: no

Question: yeah i'm i'm we're not from Texas we're from further we're from Missouri so it's it's
Texas is not where we are from, we are from Missouri.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
Responding to the wildfires that burned over 6.5 million acres of public and private land in 2000, the Congress appropriated an additional $240 million in fiscal year 2001 to reduce hazardous fuels in high-risk locations where wildlands and urban areas meet.

Here is a hypothesis:
Congress never appropriated funds to any efforts to reduce wildfires.

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

Answer: no

Sentence 1: sell the house and move back home you know to my home town and and uh i wouldn't stay here in Texas so

Sentence 2: Stay here in Texas and never go back to my hometown.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: no

Premise:
"uh browned on all all sides and then drain off all the grease uh then what i usually do is i freeze them and then when you're ready to serve them"
Hypothesis: Once the grease is drained off, this can be frozen.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
yes