Question: Sentence A: Knowing the basis on which the case instances were selected, for example, is crucial in cumulation; otherwise it is not possible to know whether best case, worst case, typical, or the like instances are being aggregated.

Sentence B: There are many cases that were selected through out the history of looking over the cases.

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: He writes, Not the Jews but Marxism and Social Democracy served as the prime scapegoats of Nazi propaganda during their rise to power.
Jews were used as the primary scapegoats of the Nazis, while Marxism and Social Democracy were glorified.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: no

Problem: Here is a premise:
no but to us you know we're going oh we're so glad we have a brick home all we have is like trim around the windows or something and

Here is a hypothesis:
We were saying that we were happy to have a brick home.

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

Answer: yes

Sentence 1: and and they're very dissatisfied and they're they're causing wars right now and

Sentence 2: The people are upset with their situation and starting wars.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
And where ineligible persons participate anyway, the great majority of them are near-poor, often those who are eligible under non-LSC funding programs such as IOLTA and Administration on Aging.

Does it follow that "The people that need help the most don't get it due to ineligibility. "?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Question:
Based on the premise "Hale's story hasn't changed at all since he spoke with Isikoff in '93.", can we conclude that "Hale spoke with Isikoff in 1992."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no