Problem: SAO PAULO May 30 A Brazilian court ordered state-controlled oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA to sell natural gas to Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA despite the power utility's billionaire debt with the oil company. Eletrobras, as the state-controlled utility is known, plans to use the gas to begin testing a thermal power station under construction in the Amazon region that is scheduled to start operating in June. (Reporting by Luciano Costa; Writing by Bruno Federowski)

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The Brazilian court that courted Petroleo Brasileiro SA to sell natural gas to Eletrobras was wrong to do so."? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A: It's impossible to say
Q: It's best, generally, for people to testify at depositions.
They refuse to testify at a deposition, and my suggestion to them was that if we were capable of resolving something as a result of this conference, that they would then attend a deposition, because I believe the defendants would have a right to cross-examine them or otherwise examine them prior to them taking the stand. And based upon that, they would then testify in court.
OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
A: It's impossible to say
Kayak Flipping<br>My friend and I were in a kayak race during Spring Break. We didn't do so well in the first stretch. We decided to spin around in the kayak instead of rowing towards shore. Another kayak hit our kayak so my friend and I fell into the water. Our other friends had to swim out to get us, and it was embarrassing.
They were in a kayak race sometime during the months of March, April, or May. OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
A: Yes
input hypothesis: Baghdad is a location with lots of weapons sites
Context: An official of the International Special Commission in charge of disarming Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM) announced yesterday, Saturday, that the Commission will keep its inspectors in Iraq despite Baghdad's decision to stop its cooperation with them.
OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
true or false: It's impossible to say
Context:
Well, it may provide additional incentives for the patentee to exploit and promote and disseminate that particular work. With respect to creative works like works of art, books and that sort of thing, it 20 patentee, that there was a bargain in effect between the inventor and the Government that at a certain period of time it would become part of the public domain. It seems to me it's inconsistent with that.
Hypothesis: Something patented can eventually become part of the public domain. OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
Yes
Problem: I think that what -- I think the point of that is that anybody would have a hard time trying to make a tax cut plan that is so large, that would put us into such big deficits, that gives almost half the benefits to the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think anybody would have a hard time explaining that clearly in a way that makes sense to the average person.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The tax cut plan is understandable for most anyone. "? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A:
No