Premise:
"This is inherently more credible than a commitment to use force for no good reason except that you said you would."
Hypothesis: This is definitely more credible than saying you're going to use force and then using it.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

yes

input question: The White House called the cuts a huge risk for the country, and Rep. If this premise is true, does that tell us:"The White House claimed that the cuts would have negative effects on the country."?

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

output answer: yes

Question:
Based on the premise "What had happened, how this had sprung up out of nothing, the Kentuckian could not understand.", can we conclude that "The Kentuckian couldn't understand what had happened. "? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: oh it's it's eight percent it's eight here

Sentence B: It has never moved from eight percent here.

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: Surrounded on three sides by ravines above the sea, the pretty tree-shaded resort of Sorrento still retains something of its old-fashioned air, and is still the most popular and best logistic base for boat and car excursions along the coast and peninsula.
The resort of Sorrento is the most popular and logical base for boat and car excursion along the coast.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
This undermines explanations that assume ironclad effects of hormones.

Here is a hypothesis:
Effects of hormones are static according to this.

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

Answer:
no