Problem: Here is a premise:
So punishing past corporate sins is not like fining everyone who was present when an accident occurred, but when it was reported, which seems both unfair and pointless.

Here is a hypothesis:
People who may not have been involved with the accident could still be punished for corporate sins that are reported.

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

Answer: yes

Sentence 1: You're his close successor.

Sentence 2: You are not close to him in anyway.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer: no

Question:
His pride in the colt had been pushing him toward such a trial ever since he had heard Fenner speak of Oro.

Does it follow that "Fenner spoke of Oro because he plans to put his bets on it."?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Answer:
it is not possible to tell

Q: If is that for like gym classes for PE classes and things like that, can we say that "Is that something to use in a history class?"?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

A: no

Premise:
"pick up my daughter but anyway it was uh it the it it's interesting though the the the difficulty with with Dancing with Wolves is that when you make a movie like that and you produce it and then you star in it uh the question is did he did he really know it was gonna be good or did he just do it"
Hypothesis: Have you seen Dancing with Wolves?
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no

no

Sentence 1: Noble warrior.

Sentence 2: He was a strong warrior.
OPTIONS:
- yes
- it is not possible to tell
- no
Is this second sentence entailed by the first?

Answer:
yes