Premise:
"And it is impossible to see how this difference from Rust has any bearing upon the First Amendment question, which, to repeat, is whether the funding scheme is 'manipulated' to have a 'coercive effect' on those who do not hold the subsidized position."
Hypothesis: It is not possible to see how this difference from Rust has any bearing on the First Amendment question.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

yes

input question: (Well, actually, he goes on to argue in a similar fashion against the logical plausibility of free speech, academic freedom, and blind justice.) If this premise is true, does that tell us:"He never actually agreed to any of these logics."?

OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

output answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
Based on the premise "The real Benjamin Franklin earned his place in history.", can we conclude that "Franklin was the biggest historical figure of his era."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Question: Sentence A: Towering over the sheltered yachting harbor of the Vieux Bassin are tall houses with slate and timber facades.

Sentence B: The yachting harbor is sheltered to prevent the interiors going rusty

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

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Question: They had shadow gods devoted to it.
There were shadow gods that are devoted to it.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
How did you assess an emotion you did not understand yourself?

Here is a hypothesis:
There are emotions that we ourselves don't understand because emotions are complicated.

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

Answer:
it is not possible to tell