Question:
Based on the premise "Finally, in compliance with section 604(a)(5), the analysis describes the significant alternatives considered and rejected, including universal applicability to commercial mobile voice services, automatic exclusion of all rural cellular carriers, and a Commission-developed set of standards for implementation.", can we conclude that "Significant alternatives were considered and dismissed in compliance with section 604(a)(5) and section 605(a)(2)."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Question: Sentence A: I know of no law which states that I may not employ whom I choose on my own land.

Sentence B: I know of the law which prevents me from hiring criminals, even if it's working on my own land.

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

Answer: no

Question: Alternative Fiscal Policy Simulations (2000-2075) 86 Figure 4.3:Composition of Federal Spending as a Share of GDP
Other fiscal policy situations.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
You're reading the paper they wanted to make.

Here is a hypothesis:
This is the paper they wanted to make.

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

Answer: yes

Sentence 1: This minute! For a moment we sat and stared at her.

Sentence 2: We looked at her intently for a short time.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: yes

Premise:
"i don't i don't like to look too deep into movies if it's good it's good if it's not it's not"
Hypothesis: I don't try to analyze movies, I'll simply say if it's good or not.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
yes