Question:
Based on the premise "These two cases illustrate the need to pursue U.S. interests on two tracks--together as possible and alone as necessary (or, in diplomatic jargon, multilaterally and unilaterally).", can we conclude that "They had two paths that both have valid points."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: I wasn't even a construction engineer.

Sentence B: I am not a construction engineer.

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

Answer: yes

Question: seven to ten minutes and then you can make chocolate or you can take it off and when it cools a little you put um really good vanilla favoring in it and some butter and that makes French vanilla um custard
Vanilla flavoring always makes chocolate stuff taste better.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Problem: Here is a premise:
Such a reorientation might facilitate the process of linking resource allocation to results consistent with GPRA.

Here is a hypothesis:
The results of the allocating of the resources need to be in agreement with GPRA.

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

Answer: yes

Sentence 1: yeah they go to arts and crafts fairs and uh have their uh stand that they set up display all their uh all their products lots of vases and plates and bowls

Sentence 2: They go to arts and crafts fairs and set up displays.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: yes

Premise:
"right and i hear so many people saying well i wish this would change i wish that and you know but they didn't go vote"
Hypothesis: People want change but don't go vote.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
yes