input question: News keeps changing the rules simply in order to change the results. If this premise is true, does that tell us:"One such example is in 2009 when the newspaper "The Guardian" directly created a story in order to increase clicks and ad revenue."?

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

output answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
Based on the premise "However, in either case (material variance or no variance) each employee's T&A record must be approved by the supervisor or comparable official.", can we conclude that "Each employees T&A record must be approved by the supervisor or comparable official. "? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: If you stay for dinner, you'll be able to inspect the restaurant's famous collection of paintings by Matisse, Derain, and Utrillo.

Sentence B: You will not be able to see the paintings by Matisse if you stay for dinner at the restaurant.

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

Answer: no

Question: Editorialists admired and reviled his diabolical shrewdness.
He had pulled off a master stroke that the newspapers could not stop talking about.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Problem: Here is a premise:
yeah it's really interesting it

Here is a hypothesis:
It's really interesting to learn that.

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

Answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
yeah you know because they they told us in school that you know crime has to be an intent you know has to be not just the act but you have to intend to do it because there could be accidental kind of things you know

Does it follow that "I was told in school that if you do something bad by accident it is not a crime."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
yes