Premise:
"But he was sure the language he somehow spoke wasn't an ancient one."
Hypothesis: But we was sure the language he spoke was modern.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

yes

input question: oh you must live in this area we're in Sherman If this premise is true, does that tell us:"We're in Fort Lauderdale right now, you don't live here, do you?"?

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

output answer: no

Question:
Based on the premise "Sufficient money and party regulars and money have been assembled to make the primaries and indeed the general election even more than usually irrelevant.", can we conclude that "The general election is more than irrelevant due to sufficient money."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
yes

Question: Sentence A: exactly exactly right yeah we we have i think we we name drop it a little too much and and don't fully understand what what what it is we're saying i think it's it's focusing in on the issue and walking your talk and and all that kind of rolls in together there but uh

Sentence B: I think we can name drop.

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

Answer: yes

Question: Second, it's hard to maintain a consumer boycott, especially when the goal is to punish the past rather than to influence the future.
The goal of punishing the past, rather than change the future can hinder boycotts.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
From a welfare point of view, a type-2 discount situation is extremely attractive because the potential gains are large.

Here is a hypothesis:
Type-2 discount situation is not favourable from a welfare point of view.

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

Answer:
no