Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Follow

Neuronovo 9

In response to 'Drew was puzzled.', does 'Drew understood completely.' serve as a counterstatement?

Drew was puzzled.###Drew understood completely.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis naturally and logically follow? Premise: Drew was puzzled. Hypothesis: Drew understood completely.

Drew was puzzled.###Drew understood completely.

Considering 'Drew was puzzled.', does 'Drew understood completely.' maintain an independent stance?

Drew was puzzled.###Drew understood completely.

Does '8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.' stand independently of the premise 'GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.', neither following nor contradicting it?

8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.###GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.

Taking '8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.' as a given, does it logically imply 'GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.'

8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.###GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.

Is there an overt contradiction between '8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.' and 'GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.'

8 After 2010, we assumed discretionary spending would grow at the same rate as GDP.###GDP and discretionary spending were expected to grow by 20 percent after 2010.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this' and 'My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.'

and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this###My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.

Does 'and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.'

and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this###My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this Hypothesis: My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.

and so i was so proud after he got me extricated he looked at went out there to check it over and he just laughed he said Sissy i'm sorry but we're going to redo this###My pride was nill after he got me extricated, good thing there was nothing else to redo.

Is there a clear contradiction between 'and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold' and 'it was clear the coach was to blame. '

and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold###it was clear the coach was to blame.

Does 'and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'it was clear the coach was to blame. '

and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold###it was clear the coach was to blame.

Can 'and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'it was clear the coach was to blame. '

and i don't know that sounds to to me more like the front office problem than coaching problem but then the team was sold###it was clear the coach was to blame.

If 'We are not ready to call it quits.' is true, does it logically mean that 'We aren't ready to stop.' also is?

We are not ready to call it quits.###We aren't ready to stop.

Does 'We are not ready to call it quits.' exist in a separate context from 'We aren't ready to stop.', without logical interdependence?

We are not ready to call it quits.###We aren't ready to stop.

Given 'We are not ready to call it quits.', does 'We aren't ready to stop.' present an opposing view?

We are not ready to call it quits.###We aren't ready to stop.

Does 'The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.' stand independently of the premise 'LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.', neither following nor contradicting it?

The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.###LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.

From 'The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.', can we infer that 'LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.' follows logically?

The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.###LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.

Does 'The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.' serve to directly refute the premise presented in 'LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.'

The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes petitioner Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations providing free legal assistance to indigent clients in, inter alia, welfare benefits claims.###LSC is allowed to give money to organizations that help people with welfare benefits claims.

Taking 'The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.' as a given, does it logically imply 'The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.'

The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.###The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.

Considering the premise 'The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.', is 'The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.' a statement that stands on its own?

The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.###The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.

Does the statement 'The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.' conflict with the idea presented in 'The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.'

The most beautiful you will meet during the next convention.###The most beautiful thing you will see during the next convention.

With the premise 'The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890.', is 'The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.' a reasonable conclusion?

The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890.###The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890. Hypothesis: The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.

The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890.###The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.

Does 'The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890.' offer a contrasting position to 'The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.'

The notion of increasing returns has been around since Adam Smith, and it was written about at length by Alfred Marshall in 1890.###The idea of increasing returns has been in existence since Adam Smith.

Does the statement 'It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong.' conflict with the idea presented in 'The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.'

It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong.###The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong. Hypothesis: The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.

It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong.###The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong. Hypothesis: The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.

It is even becoming something of a commuter town owning or renting an apartment here costs a fraction of what it would in Hong Kong.###The rent prices are some of the highest in the world in this city.

In the context of 'that's pathetic that's pathetic it's', does 'That's stupid' stand alone without direct association?

that's pathetic that's pathetic it's###That's stupid

From 'that's pathetic that's pathetic it's', can we infer that 'That's stupid' follows logically?

that's pathetic that's pathetic it's###That's stupid

Considering 'that's pathetic that's pathetic it's', is 'That's stupid' a statement that refutes it?

that's pathetic that's pathetic it's###That's stupid

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.' and 'We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.'

Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.###We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.

From the starting point of 'Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.', does 'We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.' follow as a logical conclusion?

Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.###We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.' and 'We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.', lacking direct logical ties?

Of course it is true that for a given level of spending, lowering one tax will require raising another.###We could probably lower all taxes and nothing would change.

From 'However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.', can we conclude that 'Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.###Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.

Given the context of 'However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.', does 'Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.' emerge logically?

However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.###Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.

Does 'However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.' logically negate the premise 'Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.'

However, participation in a taxpayer clinic is not solely limited to tax experts since these programs provide extensive training and mentoring.###Any educated person may participate in a taxpayer clinic.

Does 'A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.'

A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.###Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.

Does accepting 'A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.' as true logically compel one to accept 'Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.'

A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.###Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.

Considering 'A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.', is 'Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.' a statement that refutes it?

A statement that successfully picks its way across this dangerous terrain is said to exhibit an economy of truth , and a person who has uttered such a statement is said to have been economical with the truth . These characterizations, too, were originally conferred with a sense of professional appreciation (I first heard them on the lips of some Jesuit friends), but they have also been pulled out of truth's orbit and into the atmosphere of mendacity.###Someone who is economical with the truth cannot be honest.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.' and 'The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.'

The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.###The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.

With the premise 'The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.', is 'The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.' a reasonable conclusion?

The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.###The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.

Is 'The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.' in direct disagreement with the statement 'The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.'

The price index (weighted price) for basic mail in 1996 was 39.###The price index for mail in 1996 was one of the highest ones on the market.

Does 'Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.' logically negate the premise 'Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.'

Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.###Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.

Does the foundation laid by 'Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.' logically support 'Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.'

Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.###Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.' and 'Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.'

Reed's departure will diminish the movement's influence.###Reed leaving will make the movement more powerful.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis contradict the premise? Premise: The whole thing's damned awkward! Hypothesis: The situation is completely acceptable.

The whole thing's damned awkward! ###The situation is completely acceptable.

With 'The whole thing's damned awkward! ', is it rational to deduce 'The situation is completely acceptable.'

The whole thing's damned awkward! ###The situation is completely acceptable.

Given 'The whole thing's damned awkward! ', can 'The situation is completely acceptable.' be seen as maintaining a distinct, neutral position?

The whole thing's damned awkward! ###The situation is completely acceptable.

Considering 'yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house', is 'Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.' a statement that refutes it?

yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house###Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.

Does the narrative of 'yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house' logically evolve into 'Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.'

yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house###Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.

In the context of 'yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house', does 'Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.' stand alone without direct association?

yeah yeah up in uh New England it's uh uh you know three or four or five months tops after that you're in the house###Over in New York you have ten months tops before you even set foot in that building.

Does 'GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.' neither support nor refute 'The budgetary cuts were dramatic.', instead existing independently?

GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.###The budgetary cuts were dramatic.

With 'GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.', is it rational to deduce 'The budgetary cuts were dramatic.'

GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.###The budgetary cuts were dramatic.

Does 'GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.' serve to directly refute the premise presented in 'The budgetary cuts were dramatic.'

GAO's significant human capital imbalances and risks stem from dramatic budgetary cuts, downsizing, hiring freezes, and other related actions from 1992 through1997.###The budgetary cuts were dramatic.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes. Hypothesis: In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.

Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes.###In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.

Is there a lack of direct logical connection between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes. Hypothesis: In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.

Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes.###In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.

Does 'Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes.' challenge or dispute the premise 'In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.'

Some city delivery routes, called curb line routes, use vehicles to provide curbside delivery to a mail receptacle along the curb as is done by rural routes.###In some of the cities, vehicles are used for delivering mail along the curb.

In relation to 'Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.', does 'You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.' express a contradictory stance?

Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.###You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.

Given 'Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.', would 'You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.' be a logical outcome?

Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.###You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.

With the premise 'Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.', is 'You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.' simply an unrelated statement?

Be sure to plan ahead through the Tourist Information Office or a Delhi travel agency, because admission to the park is by permit only.###You can walk right in; the park is open to the public.

Is 'when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.'

when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important###Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.

Does 'when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.'

when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important###Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.

Is 'when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important' in direct disagreement with the statement 'Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.'

when i was much younger it was uh less important to consider retirement and less important to consider medical benefits but as i grow older and my family grows it the medical benefits are more important and the retirement is more important###Young people don't understand the importance of planning for your future health.

Can 'Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.'

Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.###I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.

Is 'Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.'

Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.###I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.

Is there a clear contradiction between 'Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.' and 'I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.'

Convenient that they were here, I thought, then remembered vaguely: Derry and I planned this.###I remembered Derry and I had set this whole plan up.

Does 'we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.'

we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things###The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.

Given the context of 'we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things', does 'The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.' emerge logically?

we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things###The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things Hypothesis: The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.

we we went in and did what we set out to do i i have there's there's been like a lot of things said about if it was a political well if it was a war for oil or a a war for ideals and seems to be real mixed between those two things###The war on Iraq was highly controversial at the time.

From 'Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.', can we conclude that 'There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.###There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.

Does accepting 'Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.' as true logically compel one to accept 'There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.'

Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.###There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.' and 'There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.'

Signatory countries will be prohibited from buying chemicals--those with only residual military use that are not banned--from nonsignatory countries.###There are ways around the ban on buying chemicals from nonsignatory countries.

With the premise 'i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed', is 'Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine' a reasonable conclusion?

i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed###Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine

In the context of 'i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed', does 'Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine' stand alone without direct association?

i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed###Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed Hypothesis: Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine

i guess the one that really got me too was that uh let's say your spouse is on a particular drug and you know what that is and then you end up with the same problem and you take their leftover medicine that's not allowed###Your spouse is not allowed to take the leftover medicine

Does 'Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'Schultz is happy living in his home.'

Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.###Schultz is happy living in his home.

With 'Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.', is it rational to deduce 'Schultz is happy living in his home.'

Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.###Schultz is happy living in his home.

Does the connection between 'Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.' and 'Schultz is happy living in his home.' lack any definitive logical relationship?

Now, after years of litigation, a frustrated Schultz plans to put the house on the market.###Schultz is happy living in his home.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again' and 'A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.', lacking direct logical ties?

yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again###A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.

From 'yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again', can we infer that 'A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.' follows logically?

yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again###A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.

In relation to 'yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again', does 'A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.' express a contradictory stance?

yeah there was a little girl picked up in Rowlett from uh from her front yard and her dad was working in the back yard and had just left her few minutes in the front yard and somebody apparently drove up and took her and they never saw her again###A little girl in Rowlett was abducted and never found, the parents blame themselves.

Does accepting 'you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one' as true logically compel one to accept 'I wouldn't need anyone at night.'

you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one###I wouldn't need anyone at night.

Is 'you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'I wouldn't need anyone at night.'

you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one###I wouldn't need anyone at night.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one Hypothesis: I wouldn't need anyone at night.

you know that's sixteen hours because one would come in the morning and one would be at night i mean in the afternoon and then that night it wouldn't need one###I wouldn't need anyone at night.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c. Hypothesis: Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.

Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c.###Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.

Considering the premise 'Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c.', is 'Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.' a statement that stands on its own?

Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c.###Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c. Hypothesis: Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.

Of the once white walls of Memphis, little remains, but it was capital of Egypt until the end of the sixth Dynasty (c. 2200 b.c. ). The two major relics are a monumental statue of Ramses II lying proseate after losing its feet, and an alabaster sphinx dating from 1400 b.c.###Very little remains of Memphis' previously white walls.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh. Hypothesis: Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.

The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh.###Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh. Hypothesis: Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.

The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh.###Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh.' and 'Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.'

The capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (the Fort of Eidyn, almost certainly the Castle Rock), whose name lives on in the Edin- of Edinburgh.###Edinburgh was named for Din Eidyn because it was probably the Castle Rock, an important place in Gododdin.

Does 'The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera.' stand independently of the premise 'The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.', neither following nor contradicting it?

The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera.###The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera. Hypothesis: The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.

The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera.###The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis contradict the premise? Premise: The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera. Hypothesis: The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.

The Galleria provides a sheltered, much trafficked pedestrian passage from the Duomo to another holy entity, the revered 18th-century La Scala theater, high temple of opera.###The theater sees over 500,000 visitors each year.

Is 'I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ' a logical precursor to the hypothesis 'I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.'

I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ###I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.

Does 'I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ' stand independently of the premise 'I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.', neither following nor contradicting it?

I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ###I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.

Does the statement 'I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ' conflict with the idea presented in 'I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.'

I, Hercule Poirot, affirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop, and purchased strychnine at six o'clock on Monday last was not Mr. Inglethorp, for at six o'clock on that day Mr. Inglethorp was escorting Mrs. Raikes back to her home from a neighbouring farm. ###I can confirm that the man who entered the chemist's shop was not Mr Inglethorp.

Is 'Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness.' an autonomous statement, not logically connected to 'Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.'

Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness.###Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.

If we start with 'Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness.', does it make sense to conclude with 'Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.'

Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness.###Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness. Hypothesis: Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.

Democrats persuasively called Livingston's resignation a surrender to a developing sexual McCarthyism, portrayed Clinton as a fellow victim of this McCarthyism, and argued that Clinton should be spared expulsion as a first step toward ending the madness.###Democrats thought Clinton cheating on his wife was no big deal.

Does the statement 'oh no that's funny' conflict with the idea presented in 'That is hilarious. '

oh no that's funny###That is hilarious.