Question: Sentence A: Use of 3.6 mg/L (anhydrous) sodium thiosulfate will reduce 1.0 mg chlorine/L (APHA, 1992).

Sentence B: Use of 3.6 mg/L (anhydrous) sodium thiosulfate has no effect on levels of 1.0 mg chlorine/L.

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

Answer: no

Question: Intoxication in a driver would certainly be considered an alcohol problem.
If a driver is drunk, that is an alcohol problem.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
(Having seen so many episodes and observed the formula, I have thought it would be amusing to write an episode set in a think tank.

Here is a hypothesis:
Having seen two episodes, I thought it would be fun to write my own.

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

Answer: no

Sentence 1: Now economists are pointing out the unfairness of subsidizing the reduction in the number of doctors while refusing to do the same for other professions, such as economists.

Sentence 2: Economists know what they are doing, they are playing for their own gain.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
well the thing is the that a lot of those are like they're set up through a bank or a savings and loan type thing

Does it follow that "Very few are set up through a bank loan."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
no

Question:
Based on the premise "This proved highly dangerous to pilgrims who approached the abbey across the sands (the causeway joining the island to the mainland was not built until 1874).", can we conclude that "The pilgrims accessed the roads leading to the abbey with no trouble."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no