Question:
Based on the premise "This would seem to violate all the aforementioned principles.", can we conclude that "This seemed to violate all the Canadian principles."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Question: Sentence A: The water cascades 50 m (164 ft) over three major falls and has formed two large pools as well as a small cave system at the base of the second drop.

Sentence B: The 50 m (164 ft) torrent of water falls over three large breaks, forming two substantial pools and a smaller cave system.

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

Answer: yes

Question: That was the only reason the Kentuckian could think of.
The Kentuckian could only think of one reason.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
i don't know and and but you know when you go to the store and and you're trying to figure you know well this box is is uh is is twelve ounces and and this one's uh uh three pounds um and you

Here is a hypothesis:
When you go to the store and are trying to compare sizes, it's hard, so we should just always use ounces.

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

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Sentence 1: Nearby, the atmospheric medieval Alfama district is Lisbon's most picturesque and fascinating area.

Sentence 2: The most fascinating area in Lisbon is the Alfama district.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: yes

Premise:
"Whittaker A Biography , by Sam Tanenhaus (Random House)."
Hypothesis: The book "Whittaker" is in no way, shape, or form, a biography
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
no