Problem: Here is a premise:
Actually, more than a year ago (June 18, 1996) the Wall Street Journal 's Michael Frisby wrote a long story on Peter Knight that disclosed Knight's connection to Molten, Molten's donations to the Democrats, and the company's success in obtaining contracts from the Clinton administration.

Here is a hypothesis:
The company was unsuccessful in obtaining contracts from the Clinton administration.

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

Answer: no

Sentence 1: is it's not a lot of the firms that offer mortgage mortgage loan firms aren't offering um that loan

Sentence 2: Mortgage loans are not made available by any firms.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: no

Question:
that was interesting cause i always you know you didn't have to worry about carrying that much unless i knew i

Does it follow that "It was interesting because I didnt like carrying that much."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
yes

Q: If but it uh it's it's wide enough to pick up uh like the width two widths of a lawn mower, can we say that "It's not very wide at all, much shorter in width than a lawnmower."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

A: no

Premise:
"The preambles to the final rules state that the rules have been reviewed under Executive Orders Nos. 12372 (Intergovernmental cooperation) and 12612 (Federalism) and found not subject to those Orders."
Hypothesis: The rules have been reviewed under the Executive orders and found to be subject to those Orders.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

no

Sentence 1: They will be shut up in cages.

Sentence 2: They don't deserve to be locked away like this.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer:
it is not possible to tell