Question: Sentence A: Riots over Bengal's partition led to new laws for political trials without jury and also internment without trial.

Sentence B: There were riots over the new laws for political trials without a jury.

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

Answer: no

Question: These individuals can be held personally liable, under certain circumstances, for authorizations made by them.
These individuals cannot be made liable for their actions.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: no

Problem: Here is a premise:
Editorialists labored to connect the two contrary outcomes.

Here is a hypothesis:
One of the outcomes was correct and the other was wrong.

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

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Sentence 1: and be a mother for awhile and then once they've gotten to school age maybe she could go back to work so she's kind of got that option if if they wait till later they've saved up some money that it's not as difficult for her to stay at home with the kids and live off one income or something

Sentence 2: She will have to continue working everyday until the child is an adult.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: no

Question:
Surely we ought to secure the document, that is, provided the young man's guess turns out to be correct, at once.

Does it follow that "If he's right, we need to take steps to protect the document immediately."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
yes

Question:
Based on the premise "except that it is an accepted place you know it's like any other country you know for whatever reason it's", can we conclude that "It is a recognized country. "? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes