R & A: Roger Federer will not necessarily beat an opponent just because he strikes a tennis ball with a forehand swing.
it is not possible to tell
Q: Test for natural language inference.
Premise: "Roger federer strikes a tennis ball with a forehand swing on a tennis court."
Hypothesis: "Federer will beat his opponent."
Is the hypothesis entailed by the premise?
Options:
- yes
- no
- it is not possible to tell

R & A: A gurney isn't a table. Wheeling a gurney full of medical supplies doesn't necessarily mean pushing it with the purpose to put away (a table or medical materials).
it is not possible to tell
Q: Premise: "A man is wheeling a gurney full of medical supplies."
Hypothesis: "A guy is pushing a table full of medical materials to put away."
Do we know that the hypothesis entailed by the premise?

R & A: The girl could be doing anything with fire but she is specifically swinging her hips with a flaming hoola hoop.
it is not possible to tell
Q: Given the sentence "This girl has got some skills and is showing them off by playing with fire!." is it true that "The girl is swinging her hips with a flaming hoola hoop."?

R & A: Just because a A person rides a bike in front of an elaborately painted building doesn't mean he past a cathedral.
it is not possible to tell
Q:
Can we conclude from "A person rides a bike in front of an elaborately painted building." that "A man rides his bike past a cathedral."?
Options:
- yes
- no
- it is not possible to tell