Premise:
"Nor will the judicial opinions produced by LSC cases systematically distort the interpretation of welfare laws."
Hypothesis: The LSC spurs judicial opinions.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

yes

input question: Interpretation of the law and the Constitution is the primary mission of the judiciary when it acts within the sphere of its authority to resolve a case or controversy. If this premise is true, does that tell us:"The constitution is applied to current issues everyday. "?

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

output answer: it is not possible to tell

Question:
Based on the premise "well i've got to go to a meeting it's been good talking to you", can we conclude that "It's been really horrible talking to you. "? OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
****
Answer:
no

Question: Sentence A: Check here if you'd like me to unbutton your blouse.

Sentence B: Let me know if you'd like me to unclothe you.

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: The agency cites the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
The agency fails to acknowledge the Clean Air Act.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

Answer: no

Problem: Here is a premise:
But Press didn't call anyone a racist.

Here is a hypothesis:
The press called someone a racist the other day.

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

Answer:
no