Premise:
"The three sources of economic growth in the model are increased labor input, capital accumulation, and the advance of total factor productivity."
Hypothesis: The only source of economic growth was the capital acumulation
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

no

input question: And there's no queasy feeling that you must have misplaced that notice explaining how the rules were about to change. If this premise is true, does that tell us:"The rules will not change."?

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

output answer: no

Question:
Based on the premise "uh our our kids love pickles and we all love pickles so we're going to try to grow our own pickles this year we've got some good um um Hybrid Burpee uh uh pickler cucumbers and we're going to try to see if we can pickle our own and", can we conclude that "I love pickles but, my kids can't stand them."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no

Question: Sentence A: good and i get you know when you get out of shape and you don't if you're easily tired

Sentence B: I do not get how you can exercise so much and are never tired.

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

Answer: no

Question: The organization's Oxnard office broadened its services from farm worker-related aid to basic assistance last year when the federal government chose to fund it, over Channel Counties Legal Services, as the county's sole provider of legal help to the poor.
Channel Counties Legal Services is no long the county's provider of legal help to the poor.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
It was already there "in the mixture.

Here is a hypothesis:
It was already contained in the mixture.

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

Answer:
yes