input question: forced people to label and marginalize themselves. If this premise is true, does that tell us:"People were forced to marginalize and label themselves."?

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

output answer: yes

Question:
Based on the premise "And it has that power because its network has been architected to give it that power.", can we conclude that "The network has not given it power."? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no

Question: Sentence A: we started out uh well we were living in Florida at the time and we early in life we discovered that six people all going on vacation gets to be very very expensive

Sentence B: We were living in Florida at the time but now we live in California.

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: but uh i guess the hardwoods are probably the biggest thing we have are our hard maple and hard oak and and the the evergreens
We have a lot of green trees and plants.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: yes

Problem: Here is a premise:
Come to think of it, that's what the welfare system was meant to do.

Here is a hypothesis:
That is not how the welfare system is supposed to work.

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

Answer: no

Question:
A map with holes in it is a mnemonic for the global-warming treaty and its supposedly glaring loopholes.

Does it follow that "The climate projection map has some glaring loopholes in it."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
it is not possible to tell