Problem: This looks artificial when you're dealing with a fact witness, but these are fact witnesses who are also reporters, and I am straining to try to find a fair way to do this. I believe that to the extent -- and I've said this now several times -- that the reporters' testimony is necessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 807, that the defendants have to have an opportunity to examine the reporters on the same topics and subjects that I would allow the plaintiffs to question them on during their case-in-chief, nothing more and nothing less.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "With respect to reporter testimony to get a hearsay exception, defendants are allowed to ask the same types of questions as plaintiffs. "? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A: Yes

Problem: Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce turned some heads Sunday when he trashed the officials after the Chiefs' 18-16 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Kelce said the official who threw a flag against Chiefs left tackle Eric Fisher a penalty that negated what would have been the tying 2-point conversion "shouldn't be able to work at Foot Locker." Well, Foot Locker got wind of the tirade and tried to change Kelce's opinion of the sneaker store. Foot Locker's response begs the question: Will anyone come to the defense of the refs?

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "the chiefs lost to steelers"? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A: Yes

Problem: Thus, China's President repeatedly sent letters and envoys to the Dalai Lama and to the Tibetan Government asking that Tibet "join" the Republic of China.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "China has a total area of over three million square miles."? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A:
It's impossible to say