Datasets:

agentlans

/

Capybara

like 0

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"DON'T KNOW\", \"NO\" or \"YES\".\nA: From 1961 until 1991, lifelong Chicago resident Andrew Rozdilsky performed as the unofficial yet popular mascot \"Andy the Clown\" for the White Sox at the original Comiskey Park. Known for his elongated \"Come on you White Sox\" battle cry, Andy got his start after a group of friends invited him to a Sox game in 1960, where he decided to wear his clown costume and entertain fans in his section. That response was so positive that when he won free 1961 season tickets, he decided to wear his costume to all games. Comiskey Park ushers eventually offered free admission to Rozdilsky. Starting in 1981, the new ownership group led by Jerry Reinsdorf introduced a twosome, called Ribbie and Roobarb, as the official team mascots, and banned Rozdilsky from performing in the lower seating level. Ribbie and Roobarb were very unpopular , as they were seen as an attempt to get rid of the beloved Andy the Clown. The fans were very unsatisfied with Ribbie and Roobarb, as they were seen as an attempt to replace the beloved Andy the Clown.\nB: Did the fans like more than one of the mascots mentioned in the article?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "NO." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\", \"neutral\" or \"contradiction\".\nA: In the succeeding minutes , controllers were attempting to ascertain the altitude of the southbound flight .\nB: Controllers had the altitude of the plane on their screen and false is not true ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "neutral." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". Did Al-Qaeda know the Twin Towers would collapse?\n\nA: It is not known whether al-Qaeda knew the Twin Towers would collapse. [1] However, some people who are sceptical of the official account of the collapse think that explosives were used to bring the buildings down. [2, 3] Their main piece of evidence is the speed of the collapse, which reached near free fall for 2.25 seconds. [2] Other evidence includes a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which concluded that the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burnt for seven hours. [4] Some scientists have also examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material, which reacts violently when heated up, in the dust. [3]\nB: Some conspiracy theorists maintain that just before 9/11, an \"extraordinary\" amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. They speculate that insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. [1] An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks. [1] The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that \"Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.\" [3] Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"acceptable\" or \"unacceptable\".\nAITA for asking my boyfriend to return the Valentine’s Day gift he got me? | I’m probably a total ungrateful bitch but please hear me out. My bf got me a Bath and Body Works gift set thing. If anyone here (other women) know anything about Bath and Body Works sets, it’s something you buy as a generic gift for 12 year old girls. I’ve received these gift sets every Christmas in my early teens from my aunts. Like every single year. It’s not a bad gift but it’s generic and something you usually gift to young girls or women when you have to buy something and don’t know what else to get. The second I saw it, I told my bf thank you for the card and the Bath and Body Works gift set, I appreciate the sentiment but it’s a gift for 12 year olds and we are returning it. He got upset. Extremely upset. He looked at me and said “I don’t understand. You always ask me to rub lotion on your back so I got you the cocoa butter like you always use.” Instantly, the neurons in my brain started firing and I felt like a complete piece of shit. To him, as a dude, Bath and Body Works is the place - the only place - that sells lotion. It makes complete sense why he bought that for me. He knows I use lotion every day so Bath and Body Works was the perfect gift in his mind for me for Valentine’s Day. I don’t use their brand because again, it’s really for a younger age group. But he’s a guy. He could never have known that. We are in our late 20s/early 30s. After I understood that he bought it as a thoughtful gesture and not as a generic girl gift, I felt absolutely awful like a complete piece of shit. I apologized. He apologized. He’s still mad though and thinks I am an ungrateful bitch. I tried to explain the above to him but he doesn’t understand. He says if I bought him a banana or a used shirt for whatever holiday he would say thank you, love it and be happy no matter what. So, Reddit please tell me, am I the asshole?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "unacceptable." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Today, Jessica went to the movies. Between what times could they have gone?\nWe know that: \nJessica woke up at 7am.\nBetty saw Jessica buying cookies at a bakery from 7am to 9am.\nDavid saw Jessica buying lunch at the deli from 9am to 1pm.\nMark saw Jessica sitting on a rooftop from 1pm to 5pm.\nEmily saw Jessica waiting at the airport from 7pm to 8pm.\nThe movies was closed after 8pm.\nBetween what times could Jessica have gone to the movies?\n choice: 7am to 9am\n choice: 9am to 1pm\n choice: 5pm to 7pm\n choice: 7pm to 8pm\nPossible times:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "9am to 1pm." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" or \"D\". A 69-year-old male with a longstanding history of hypertension and high cholesterol presents with abdominal pain and ‘bruising on his feet’. The patient states that his symptoms started about a week ago and have steadily worsened. He describes the abdominal pain as mild to moderate, dull, and deeply localized to the umbilical region. Past medical history is significant for 2 transient ischemic attacks 6 months prior, characterized by a sudden right-sided weakness and trouble speaking but recovered fully within 30 minutes. Current medications are sildenafil 100 mg orally as needed. Patient reports a 30-pack-year smoking history and heavy alcohol use on the weekends. Review of systems is significant for decreased appetite and feeling easily full. Vitals are temperature 37°C (98.6°F), blood pressure 155/89 mm Hg, pulse 89/min, respirations 16/min, and oxygen saturation 98% on room air. On physical examination, the patient is alert and cooperative. The cardiac exam is normal. Lungs are clear to auscultation. Carotid bruit present on the right. The abdomen is soft and nontender. Bowel sounds present. A pulsatile abdominal mass is felt in the lower umbilical region. Patient’s feet have the following appearance seen in the picture. Abdominal ultrasound reveals the presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Contrast CT reveals a small, unruptured AAA (diameter 4.1 cm). High flow supplemental oxygen and fluid resuscitation are initiated. Morphine sulfate and metoprolol are administered. Which of the following is the best course of treatment for this patient?\n \n\nA: Emergency open surgical repair\nB: Discharge with clinical surveillance and ultrasound every 6 months\nC: Elective open surgical repair\nD: Elective endovascular repair" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\", \"neutral\" or \"contradiction\".\nA: Manos Krystalis (Greek: Μάνος Κρυστάλης; born November 30, 1989) is a Greek actor, performer, model and businessman who became particularly popular in Greece as a model while he worked as a runway model for a top Greek modeling agency since 2004. He participated in several international film projects as a lead main actor.\nB: Manos Krystalis was a lead main actor before 2004." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "neutral." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Floor Holder\", \"About-task\", \"Negative Non-no Answers\" or \"Reject-part\".\num the right now i'm using the unadapted models for the forced alignments." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Floor Holder." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Identify the relation between the following premises and hypotheses, choosing from the options 'entailment' or 'non-entailment'.\n\nPremise: David believes that James understands that the rhythmic gymnast completes her floor exercise at the competition. Hypothesis: David believes that the rhythmic gymnast completes her floor exercise at the competition.\nRelation:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "non-entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"not racial-bias\" or \"racial-bias\".\ndamn you really doubled down on the racism here you think black people are inherently more violent " }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not racial-bias." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "What is the answer to the following math word problem?:70 + 5 * 12 / ( 180 / 3 ) = ?\n choice:27\n choice:81\n choice:61\n choice:23\n choice:71\nA:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "81." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" or \"D\". Even without that extra, this would be a killer deal on a fast, high capacity, travel bag friendly hard drive.\n\nA: It becomes an even better deal.\nB: The additional 3 tb is only for windows environment, and the wd my passport sts elite, is the most portable and smallest portable my passport.\nC: There are cheaper drives on the site, but, because of the limited capacities, they tend to have longer warranties than the acomdata drives do.\nD: I expect it will sell out rather quickly." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "D." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not entailment\".\nA: Bob is red. If someone is furry and red then they are cold. Fiona is blue. All cold, smart people are red. Bob is white. All rough, red people are blue. Red, blue people are furry. All smart, red people are rough. Smart, white people are red. All white, red people are rough. Harry is furry. Erin is smart. All furry people are white. Fiona is white. Erin is white. All cold, red people are blue.\nB: Fiona is red." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Given a fact, answer the following question with a yes or a no.\nFact: John didn't have Mary leave. Q: Did Mary leave?\nA:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "no." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not_entailment\".\nA: Which British sculptor whose work include the Queen Victoria memorial in front of Buckingham Palace is included in the V&A collection?\nB: Sculptors both British and Europeans who were based in Britain and whose work is in the collection include Nicholas Stone, Caius Gabriel Cibber, Grinling Gibbons, John Michael Rysbrack, Louis-François Roubiliac, Peter Scheemakers, Sir Henry Cheere, Agostino Carlini, Thomas Banks, Joseph Nollekens, Joseph Wilton, John Flaxman, Sir Francis Chantrey, John Gibson, Edward Hodges Baily, Lord Leighton, Alfred Stevens, Thomas Brock, Alfred Gilbert, George Frampton, and Eric Gill." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"false\", \"mixture\", \"true\" or \"unproven\".\nA man killed himself over the Treasury's decision to add an African-American abolitionist's portrait to the $20 bill." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "false." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"false\" or \"true\".\nThis past weekend, Americans watched in shock as “alt-right” members, neo-Nazis and white nationalists descended upon Charlottesville, Virginia, attempting to spread their message of hate and intolerance. Clashes between white nationalists and counter-protesters were numerous. One counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was killed when a man rammed his car into several counter-protesters. The man, 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr., was later charged with second-degree murder. Earlier that day, he was photographed displaying the symbols of a white nationalist group called Vanguard America, which later denied he was a member. That weekend journalist Shaun King posted a video of several men beating a 20-year-old man named Deandre Harris. King, who was attempting to confirm the identities of the men behind the beating, found that one of the men, Alex Michael Ramos, identifies as Latino. A group called the Atlanta Antifascists then tweeted that Ramos was affiliated with the Atlanta chapter of the far-right organization Proud Boys and the far-right militia called the Georgia Security Force. When a viewer asked why he marched with racists, Ramos said, “I stood by racist people but they weren’t racist to me.” Ramos’ assertion that his Puerto Rican roots meant he couldn’t be racist is a prime example of Latinos who are completely ignorant of their ability to perpetuate white supremacy. Guess what? Latinos, both here and in Latin America, do and say plenty of things that promote anti-blackness — and most of the time we don’t even blink an eye when it happens. When it comes to discussing racism, we often subscribe to the black vs. white binary that we often see in the United States. If our views aren’t extreme, if we’re not a “full-blown racist,” then we’re completely absolved of perpetuating anti-blackness, right? Wrong. When we think like that, we tend to ignore the colorism — often subtle — that permeates through much of Latin America. It’s a difficult thing to confront, but if we don’t address it within our own community, we can’t expect it to magically resolve itself. Pulitzer prize-winning Dominican-American author Junot Diaz once said, “White supremacy’s greatest trick is that it has convinced people that it exists always in other people, never in us.” Don’t believe him? When he was fired over the comments, Figueroa wrote an open letter to Michelle Obama saying he isn’t racist because he comes from a bi-racial family. Meanwhile, in Mexican print media… ?? pic.twitter.com/xwyW0QWfJc — Laura Martínez® (@miblogestublog) August 17, 2017 Yes, Real Madrid are nicknamed “Los Blancos,” but the joke is clearly rooted in the idea that “white supremacy” is a problem “over there” in the U.S. and not in Mexico, where they released a stamp celebrating a cartoon character that is a racist stereotype. Right now would be a good time for us to revisit that and not just stop there, but continue to educate ourselves on how we can make sure we’re not promoting white supremacy." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "true." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"1\", \"9\", \"10\" or \"7\".\n512 U.S. 967114 S.Ct. 2630129 L.Ed.2d 750\nPaul Palalaua TUILAEPA, Petitioner,v.CALIFORNIA. William Arnold PROCTOR, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.\nNos. 93-5131, 93-5161.\nSupreme Court of the United States\nArgued March 22, 1994.\nDecided June 30, 1994.\n\n\nSyllabus\n*\n\nA defendant in California is eligible for the death penalty when a jury finds him guilty of first-degree murder and finds one or more of the special circumstances listed in Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 190.2. The case then proceeds to the penalty phase, where the jury is instructed to consider numerous other factors listed in § 190.3 in deciding whether to impose death. Petitioners Tuilaepa and Proctor were convicted of first-degree murder in separate cases. At the penalty phase of each trial, the jury was instructed to consider the relevant sentencing factors in § 190.3. Both petitioners were sentenced to death, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Here, they challenge the constitutionality of penalty-phase factor (a), which requires the sentencer to consider the \"circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted . . . and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.\" Tuilaepa also challenges factor (b), which requires the sentencer to consider the \"presence or absence of criminal activity [involving] the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence,\" and factor (i), which requires the sentencer to consider the defendant's age at the time of the crime.\nHeld: The factors in question are not unconstitutionally vague under this Court's decisions construing the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Pp. ____.\n(a) The Court's vagueness review is quite deferential, and relies on the basic principle that a factor is not unconstitutional if it has some \"commonsense core of meaning . . . that criminal juries should be capable of understanding.\" Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 279, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2959, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (White, J., concurring in judgment). Petitioners' challenge to factor (a) is at some odds with settled principles, for the circumstances of the crime are a traditional subject for consideration by the sentencer, see, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (plurality opinion), and factor (a) instructs the jury in understandable terms. Factor (b) is framed in conventional and understandable terms as well. Asking a jury to consider matters of historical fact is a permissible part of the sentencing process. Tuilaepa's challenge to factor (i) is also unusual in light of the Court's precedents. See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115-117, 102 S.Ct. 869, 877, 71 L.Ed.2d 1. While determining the bearing age ought to have in fixing the penalty can pose a dilemma for the jury, difficulty in application is not the equivalent of vagueness. Pp. ____.\n(b) This Court's precedents also foreclose petitioners' remaining arguments. Selection factors need not require answers to factual questions. The States are not confined to submitting to the jury specific propositional questions, see e.g., Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 878-880, 889, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2743-2744, 2749, 77 L.Ed.2d 235, and there is no constitutional problem where an instruction directs consideration of a crime's facts and circumstances. Nor must a capital sentencer be instructed how to weigh any particular fact in the sentencing decision. See, e.g., California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008-1009, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3457-3458, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171. Pp. 2638-2639.\nNo. 93-5131, 4 Cal.4th 569, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142, and No. 93-5161, 4 Cal.4th 499, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100, affirmed.\nKENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, and SOUTER, JJ., filed concurring opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion.\nHoward W. Gillingham, North Hollywood, CA, appointed by this Court, for petitioner Tuilaepa.\nWendy Cole Lascher, Ventura, CA, appointed by this Court, for petitioner, Proctor.\nWilliam George Prahl, Sacramento, CA, for the respondent.\nJustice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.\n\n\n1\nIn California, to sentence a defendant to death for first-degree murder the trier of fact must find the defendant guilty and also find one or more of 19 special circumstances listed in Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 190.2 (West 1988 & Supp.1994). The case then proceeds to the penalty phase, where the trier of fact must consider a number of specified factors in deciding whether to sentence the defendant to death. § 190.3.1 These two cases present the question whether three of the § 190.3 penalty-phase factors are unconstitutionally vague under decisions of this Court construing the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n\n2\n* Petitioner Tuilaepa's case arises out of a murder he committed in Long Beach, California, in October 1986. Tuilaepa and an accomplice walked into the Wander Inn Bar in Long Beach, where a small crowd had gathered to watch Monday Night Football. Tuilaepa, who was carrying a .22-caliber rifle, approached the bartender, pointed the rifle at him, and demanded money from the cash register. After the bartender turned over the money, Tuilaepa and his accomplice began robbing the bar's patrons. When the accomplice demanded money from a man named Melvin Whiddon, Whiddon refused and knocked the accomplice to the floor. Tuilaepa shot Whiddon in the neck and next shot Whiddon's brother, Kelvin, who was standing nearby. Tuilaepa turned to another man, Bruce Monroe, and shot him in the stomach. As Tuilaepa and his accomplice ran toward the back door, they confronted Kenneth Boone. Tuilaepa shot Boone in the neck. Melvin Whiddon died at the scene from the gunshot wounds; the others suffered serious and in some cases permanent injuries.\n\n\n3\nThe State sought the death penalty against Tuilaepa, charging him with the murder of Melvin Whiddon and one special circumstance under § 190.2: murder during the commission of a robbery. The jury found Tuilaepa guilty of first-degree murder and also found the special circumstance true. At the penalty phase, the trial judge instructed the jury to consider the relevant sentencing factors specified in § 190.3. The jury was unanimous in sentencing Tuilaepa to death.\n\n\n4\nPetitioner Proctor murdered Bonnie Stendal, a 55-year-old school teacher who lived in Burney, a small community in Shasta County, California. On a night in April 1982, Proctor entered Mrs. Stendal's home and beat her, causing numerous cuts and bruises on her face. Proctor stabbed Mrs. Stendal in the neck several times and inflicted seven stab wounds in the area of the right breast. Proctor raped Mrs. Stendal and committed further sexual assaults with a foreign object. After beating, torturing, and raping Mrs. Stendal, Proctor strangled her to death and dumped her body on the side of the road near Lake Britton, 12 miles from Burney. The body was found late the next afternoon, clad in a nightgown with hands tied behind the back.\n\n\n5\nThe State sought the death penalty against Proctor, charging him with murder and a number of special circumstances under § 190.2 including murder during the commission of a rape, murder during the commission of a burglary, and infliction of torture during a murder. The jury found Proctor guilty of murder and found the three special circumstances true. After a mistrial at the penalty phase, Proctor's motion for change of venue was granted, and a new sentencing jury was empaneled in Sacramento County. The trial judge instructed the jury to consider the sentencing factors specified in § 190.3. The jury was unanimous in sentencing Proctor to death.\n\n\n6\nPetitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of California, which affirmed their convictions and death sentences. We granted certiorari, 510 U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 598, 126 L.Ed.2d 564 (1993), and now affirm.\n\nII\nA.\n\n7\nOur capital punishment cases under the Eighth Amendment address two different aspects of the capital decisionmaking process: the eligibility decision and the selection decision. To be eligible for the death penalty, the defendant must be convicted of a crime for which the death penalty is a proportionate punishment. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977). To render a defendant eligible for the death penalty in a homicide case, we have indicated that the trier of fact must convict the defendant of murder and find one \"aggravating circumstance\" (or its equivalent) at either the guilt or penalty phase. See, e.g., Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 244-246, 108 S.Ct. 546, 554-555, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 878, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2743, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). The aggravating circumstance may be contained in the definition of the crime or in a separate sentencing factor (or in both). Lowenfield, supra, at 244-246, 108 S.Ct., at 554-555. As we have explained, the aggravating circumstance must meet two requirements. First, the circumstance may not apply to every defendant convicted of a murder; it must apply only to a subclass of defendants convicted of murder. See Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1534, 1542, 123 L.Ed.2d 188 (1993) (\"If the sentencer fairly could conclude that an aggravating circumstance applies to every defendant eligible for the death penalty, the circum stance is constitutionally infirm\"). Second, the aggravating circumstance may not be unconstitutionally vague. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-1765, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980); see Arave, supra, 507 U.S., at ----, 113 S.Ct., at 1541 (court \" 'must first determine whether the statutory language defining the circumstance is itself too vague to provide any guidance to the sentencer' \") (quoting Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 654, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3057-3058, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990)).\n\n\n8\nWe have imposed a separate requirement for the selection decision, where the sentencer determines whether a defendant eligible for the death penalty should in fact receive that sentence. \"What is important at the selection stage is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.\" Zant, supra, 462 U.S., at 879, 103 S.Ct., at 2743-2744; see also Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (plurality opinion). That requirement is met when the jury can consider relevant mitigating evidence of the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime. Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 307, 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1083, 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990) (\"requirement of individualized sentencing in capital cases is satisfied by allowing the jury to consider all relevant mitigating evidence\"); see Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 2669, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (slip op., at 11).\n\n\n9\nThe eligibility decision fits the crime within a defined classification. Eligibility factors almost of necessity require an answer to a question with a factual nexus to the crime or the defendant so as to \"make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.\" Arave, supra, 507 U.S., at ----, 113 S.Ct., at 1540 (internal quotation marks omitted). The selection decision, on the other hand, requires individualized sentencing and must be expansive enough to accommodate relevant mitigating evidence so as to assure an assessment of the defendant's culpability. The objectives of these two inquiries can be in some tension, at least when the inquiries occur at the same time. See Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 2009, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1994) (referring to \"two somewhat contradictory tasks\"). There is one principle common to both decisions, however: The State must ensure that the process is neutral and principled so as to guard against bias or caprice in the sentencing decision. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.) (procedures must \"minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action\"). That is the controlling objective when we examine eligibility and selection factors for vagueness. Indeed, it is the reason that eligibility and selection factors (at least in some sentencing schemes) may not be \"too vague.\" Walton, supra, 497 U.S., at 654, 110 S.Ct., at 3057; see Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361-364, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 1857-1859, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988).\n\n\n10\nBecause \"the proper degree of definition\" of eligibility and selection factors often \"is not susceptible of mathematical precision,\" our vagueness review is quite deferential. Walton, supra, 497 U.S., at 655, 110 S.Ct., at 3058; see Gregg, 428 U.S., at 193-194, 96 S.Ct., at 2935 (factors \"are by necessity somewhat general\"). Relying on the basic principle that a factor is not unconstitutional if it has some \"common-sense core of meaning . . . that criminal juries should be capable of understanding,\" Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 279, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2959, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976) (White, J., concurring in judgment), we have found only a few factors vague, and those in fact are quite similar to one another. See Maynard, 486 U.S., supra, at 363-364, 108 S.Ct., at 1859 (question whether murder was \"especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel\"); Godfrey, supra, 446 U.S., at 427-429, 100 S.Ct., at 1764-1765 (question whether murder was \"outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman\"); cf. Arave, 507 U.S., at ----, 113 S.Ct., at 1541 (\"We are not faced with pejorative adjectives . . . that describe a crime as a whole\"). In providing for individualized sentencing, it must be recognized that the States may adopt capital sentencing processes that rely upon the jury, in its sound judgment, to exercise wide discretion. That is evident from the numerous factors we have upheld against vagueness challenges. See, e.g., id., 507 U.S., at ----, 113 S.Ct., at 1541-1542 (slip op., at 8-9) (question whether the defendant was a \"cold-blooded, pitiless slayer\" is not unconstitutionally vague); Walton, supra, 497 U.S., at 654, 110 S.Ct., at 3057 (question whether \"perpetrator inflict[ed] mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim's death\" with \"mental anguish includ[ing] a victim's uncertainty as to his ultimate fate\" is not unconstitutionally vague) (internal quotation marks omitted); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255-258, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2968-2969, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.) (various \"mitigating\" questions not unconstitutionally vague, nor is the question whether the crime was a \"conscienceless or pitiless crime which [wa]s unnecessarily torturous to the victim\") (internal quotation marks omitted); Jurek, supra, 428 U.S., at 274-276, 96 S.Ct., at 2957-2958 (question \"whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society\" is not unconstitutionally vague).\n\n\n11\nIn our decisions holding a death sentence unconstitutional because of a vague sentencing factor, the State had presented a specific proposition that the sentencer had to find true or false (e.g., whether the crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel). We have held, under certain sentencing schemes, that a vague propositional factor used in the sentencing decision creates an unacceptable risk of randomness, the mark of the arbitrary and capricious sentencing process prohibited by Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). See Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992). Those concerns are mitigated when a factor does not require a yes or a no answer to a specific question, but instead only points the sentencer to a subject matter. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 190.3(a), (k) (West 1988). Both types of factors (and the distinction between the two is not always clear) have their utility. For purposes of vagueness analysis, however, in examining the propositional content of a factor, our concern is that the factor have some \"common-sense core of meaning . . . that criminal juries should be capable of understanding.\" Jurek, supra, 428 U.S., at 279, 96 S.Ct., at 2959 (White, J., concurring in judgment).\n\nB\n\n12\nWith those principles in mind, we consider petitioners' vagueness challenge to the California scheme. A defendant in California is eligible for the death penalty when the jury finds him guilty of first-degree murder and finds one of the § 190.2 special circumstances true. See California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1008, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3457, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983) (jury found that \"the defendant [fell] within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty [by] determining the truth of the alleged special circumstance,\" commission of murder during the course of a robbery). (Petitioners do not argue that the special circumstances found in their cases were insufficient, so we do not address that part of California's scheme save to describe its relation to the selection phase.) At the penalty phase, the jury is instructed to consider numerous other factors listed in § 190.3 in deciding whether to impose the death penalty on a particular defendant. Petitioners contend that three of those § 190.3 sentencing factors are unconstitutional and that, as a consequence, it was error to instruct their juries to consider them. Both Proctor and Tuilaepa challenge factor (a), which requires the sentencer to consider the \"circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.\" Tuilaepa challenges two other factors as well: factor (b), which requires the sentencer to consider \"[t]he presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence\"; and factor (i), which requires the sentencer to consider \"[t]he age of the defendant at the time of the crime.\" We conclude that none of the three factors is defined in terms that violate the Constitution.\n\n\n13\nPetitioners' challenge to factor (a) is at some odds with settled principles, for our capital jurisprudence has established that the sentencer should consider the circumstances of the crime in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. See, e.g., Woodson, 428 U.S., at 304, 96 S.Ct., at 2991 (\"consideration of . . . the circumstances of the particular offense [is] a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death\"). We would be hard pressed to invalidate a jury instruction that implements what we have said the law requires. In any event, this California factor instructs the jury to consider a relevant subject matter and does so in understandable terms. The circumstances of the crime are a traditional subject for consideration by the sentencer, and an instruction to consider the circumstances is neither vague nor otherwise improper under our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.\n\n\n14\nTuilaepa also challenges factor (b), which requires the sentencer to consider the defendant's prior criminal activity. The objection fails for many of the same reasons. Factor (b) is phrased in conventional and understandable terms and rests in large part on a determination whether certain events occurred, thus asking the jury to consider matters of historical fact. Under other sentencing schemes, in Texas for example, jurors may be asked to make a predictive judgment, such as \"whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.\" See Jurek, supra, 428 U.S., at 269, 96 S.Ct., at 2955. Both a backward-looking and a forward-looking inquiry are a permissible part of the sentencing process, however, and the States have considerable latitude in determining how to guide the sentencer's decision in this respect. Here, factor (b) is not vague.\n\n\n15\nTuilaepa's third challenge is to factor (i), which requires the sentencer to consider \"[t]he age of the defendant at the time of the crime.\" This again is an unusual challenge in light of our precedents. See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115-117, 102 S.Ct. 869, 877-878, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (age may be relevant factor in sentencing decision). The factual inquiry is of the most rudimentary sort, and there is no suggestion that the term \"age\" is vague. Petitioner contends, however, that the age factor is equivocal and that in the typical case the prosecution argues in favor of the death penalty based on the defendant's age, no matter how old or young he was at the time of the crime. It is neither surprising nor remarkable that the relevance of the defendant's age can pose a dilemma for the sentencer. But difficulty in application is not equivalent to vagueness. Both the prosecution and the defense may present valid arguments as to the significance of the defendant's age in a particular case. Competing arguments by adversary parties bring perspective to a problem, and thus serve to promote a more reasoned decision, providing guidance as to a factor jurors most likely would discuss in any event. We find no constitutional deficiency in factor (i).\n\nC\n\n16\nPetitioners could not and do not take great issue with the conclusion that factors (a), (b), and (i) provide common and understandable terms to the sentencer. Cf. Godfrey, 446 U.S., at 429, 100 S.Ct., at 1765 (\"jury's interpretation of [outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman factor] can only be the subject of sheer speculation\"). Petitioners argue, however, that selection factors must meet the requirements for eligibility factors, Brief for Petitioner in No. 93-5161, pp. 10-25, and therefore must require an answer to a factual question, as eligibility factors do. According to petitioners, a capital jury may not be instructed simply to consider an open-ended subject matter, such as \"the circumstances of the crime\" or \"the background of the defendant.\" Apart from the fact that petitioners' argument ignores the obvious utility of these open-ended factors as part of a neutral sentencing process, it contravenes our precedents. Our decisions in Zant and Gregg reveal that, at the selection stage, the States are not confined to submitting to the jury specific propositional questions. In Zant, we found no constitutional difficulty where the jury had been told to consider \" 'all facts and circumstances presented in extenuation, mitigation, and aggravation of punishment as well as such arguments as have been presented for the State and for the Defense.' \" 462 U.S., at 878-880, 889, n. 25, 103 S.Ct., at 2743-2744, 2749, n. 25. We also stated that \"[n]othing in the United States Constitution prohibits a trial judge from instructing a jury that it would be appropriate to take account of a defendant's prior criminal record in making its sentencing determination.\" Id., at 888, 103 S.Ct., at 2748. And in Gregg, we rejected a vagueness challenge to that same Georgia sentencing scheme in a case in which the \"judge . . . charged the jury that in determining what sentence was appropriate the jury was free to consider the facts and circumstances, if any, presented by the parties in mitigation or aggravation.\" 428 U.S., at 161, 203-204, 96 S.Ct., at 2919, 2939. In both cases, therefore, the Court found no constitutional problem with a death sentence where the jury instructions directed consideration of the \"facts and circumstances\" of the case. In these cases as well, we must reject petitioners' suggestion that the Constitution prohibits sentencing instructions that require the trier of fact to consider a relevant subject matter such as the \"circumstances of the crime.\"\n\n\n17\nPetitioners also suggest that the § 190.3 sentencing factors are flawed because they do not instruct the sentencer how to weigh any of the facts it finds in deciding upon the ultimate sentence. In this regard, petitioners claim that a single list of factors is unconstitutional because it does not guide the jury in evaluating and weighing the evidence and allows the prosecution (as well as the defense) to make wide-ranging arguments about whether the defendant deserves the death penalty. This argument, too, is foreclosed by our cases. A capital sentencer need not be instructed how to weigh any particular fact in the capital sentencing decision. In California v. Ramos, for example, we upheld an instruction informing the jury that the Governor had the power to commute life sentences and stated that \"the fact that the jury is given no specific guidance on how the commutation factor is to figure into its determination presents no constitutional problem.\" 463 U.S., at 1008-1009, n. 22, 103 S.Ct., at 3457-3458, n. 22. Likewise, in Proffitt v. Florida, we upheld the Florida capital sentencing scheme even though \"the various factors to be considered by the sentencing authorities [did] not have numerical weights assigned to them.\" 428 U.S., at 258, 96 S.Ct., at 2969. In Gregg, moreover, we \"approved Georgia's capital sentencing statute even though it clearly did not channel the jury's discretion by enunciating specific standards to guide the jury's consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.\" Zant, 462 U.S., at 875, 103 S.Ct., at 2742. We also rejected an objection \"to the wide scope of evidence and argument\" allowed at sentencing hearings. 428 U.S., at 203-204, 96 S.Ct., at 2939. In sum, \"discretion to evaluate and weigh the circumstances relevant to the particular defendant and the crime he committed\" is not impermissible in the capital sentencing process. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 315, n. 37, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1779, n. 37, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). \"Once the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, . . . the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment.\" Ramos, supra, 463 U.S., at 1008, 103 S.Ct., at 3457. Indeed, the sentencer may be given \"unbridled discretion in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed after it has found that the defendant is a member of the class made eligible for that penalty.\" Zant, supra, 426 U.S., at 875, 103 S.Ct., at 2742; see also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 948-951, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 3424-3425, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983) (plurality opinion). In contravention of those cases, petitioners' argument would force the States to adopt a kind of mandatory sentencing scheme requiring a jury to sentence a defendant to death if it found, for example, a certain kind or number of facts, or found more statutory aggravating factors than statutory mitigating factors. The States are not required to conduct the capital sentencing process in that fashion. See Gregg, supra, 428 U.S., at 199-200, n. 50, 96 S.Ct., at 2937-2938, n. 50.\n\n\n18\nThe instructions to the juries in petitioners' cases directing consideration of factor (a), factor (b), and factor (i) did not violate the Constitution. The judgments of the Supreme Court of California are\n\n\n19\n\nAffirmed.\n\n\n\n20\nJustice SCALIA, concurring.\n\n\n21\nIt is my view that once a State has adopted a methodology to narrow the eligibility for the death penalty, thereby ensuring that its imposition is not \"freakish,\" Wainwright v. Goode, 464 U.S. 78, 87, 104 S.Ct. 378, 383, 78 L.Ed.2d 187 (1983) (per curiam), the distinctive procedural requirements of the Eighth Amendment have been exhausted. See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 669-673, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3065-3068, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Today's decision adheres to our cases which acknowledge additional requirements, but since it restricts their further expansion it moves in the right direction. For that reason, and without abandoning my prior views, I join the opinion of the Court.\n\n\n22\nJustice SOUTER, concurring.\n\n\n23\nI join the Court's opinion because it correctly recognizes that factors adequate to perform the function of genuine narrowing, as well as factors that otherwise guide the jury in selecting which defendants receive the death penalty, are not susceptible to mathematical precision; they must depend for their requisite clarity on embodying a \"common-sense core of meaning,\" as Justice White put it in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 279, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2959, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976) (concurring opinion). Taking factor (b) to be essentially propositional, as the Court uses the term, ante, at ____, I find it is sufficiently clear to pass muster; and I agree with the Court's analysis of factor (i) and the challenged portion of factor (a), neither of which is framed as a proposition.\n\n\n24\nJustice STEVENS, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, concurring in the judgment.\n\n\n25\nAs these cases come to us they present a question that the Court answered in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). California, like Georgia, has provided a procedure for determining whether a defendant found guilty of murder is eligible for the death penalty. Petitioners have not challenged the constitutionality of that procedure or its application in these cases. Accordingly, our decision rests on the same assumption that we made in Zant, namely that the statutory procedure for determining eligibility adequately confines the class of persons eligible for the death penalty to a narrow category in which there is a special justification for \"the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.\" Id., at 877, 103 S.Ct., at 2742.\n\n\n26\nThe question is whether, in addition to adequately narrowing the class of death-eligible defendants, the State must channel the jury's sentencing discretion when it is deciding whether to impose the death sentence on an eligible defendant by requiring the trial judge to characterize relevant sentencing factors as aggravating or mitigating. In Zant we held that the incorrect characterization of a relevant factor as an aggravating factor did not prejudice the defendant; it follows, I believe, that the failure to characterize factors such as the age of the defendant or the circumstances of the crime as either aggravating or mitigating is also unobjectionable. Indeed, I am persuaded that references to such potentially ambiguous, but clearly relevant, factors actually reduces the risk of arbitrary capital sentencing.\n\n\n27\nPrior to the Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), in a number of States the death penalty was authorized not only for all first-degree murders, but for less serious offenses such as rape, armed robbery, and kidnaping as well. Moreover, juries had virtually unbridled discretion in determining whether a human life should be taken or spared. The risk of arbitrary and capricious sentencing, specifically including the danger that racial prejudice would determine the fate of the defendant,* persuaded a majority of the Court in Furman that such capital sentencing schemes were unconstitutional. The two principal protections against such arbitrary sentencing that have been endorsed in our subsequent jurisprudence focus, respectively, on the eligibility determination and the actual sentencing decision.\n\n\n28\nFirst, as Chief Justice REHNQUIST writing for the Court in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988) succinctly stated: \"To pass constitutional muster, a capital sentencing scheme must 'genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.' \" Id., at 244, 108 S.Ct., at 554 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S., at 877, 103 S.Ct., at 2742). When only a narrow sub-class of murderers can be subjected to the death penalty, the risk of cruel and unusual punishment—either because it is disproportionate to the severity of the offense or because its imposition may be influenced by unacceptable factors—is diminished. See McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 367, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1806, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Because those risks can never be entirely eliminated, however, the Court has identified an additional safeguard to protect death-eligible defendants from the arbitrary imposition of the extreme penalty.\n\n\n29\nIn Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 602-605, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2963-2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), then-Chief Justice Burger emphasized the importance of requiring the jury to make an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. Insisting that the jury have an opportunity to consider all evidence relevant to a fair sentencing decision reduces the danger that they might otherwise rely on an irrelevant and improper consideration such as the race of the defendant. In Zant, even though the trial judge had incorrectly characterized the defendant's prior history of \"assaultive offenses\" as a statutory aggravating circumstance, we found no constitutional error because the evidence supporting that characterization was relevant and admissible. 462 U.S., at 887-889, 103 S.Ct., at 2748-2749. We made it clear, however, that it would be error for a State to attach the \"aggravating\" label to, or otherwise authorize the jury to draw adverse inferences from, \"factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process, such as for example the race, religion, or political affiliation of the defendant.\" Id., at 885, 103 S.Ct., at 2747.\n\n\n30\nThe three penalty-phase factors in California's statute that are challenged in this case do not violate that command. Matters such as the age of the defendant at the time of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, and the presence or absence of force or violence are, in my opinion, relevant to an informed, individualized sentencing decision. Under Lockett, the defendant has a right to have the sentencer consider favorable evidence on each of these subjects, and under Zant it is permissible for the prosecutor to adduce unfavorable evidence on the same subjects. If, as we held in Zant, it is not constitutional error for the trial judge to place an incorrect label on the prosecutor's evidence, it necessarily follows that refusing to characterize ambiguous evidence as mitigating or aggravating is also constitutionally permissible. Indeed, as I have indicated, I think the identification of additional factors that are relevant to the sentencing decision reduces the danger that a juror may vote in favor of the death penalty because he or she harbors a prejudice against a class of which the defendant is a member.\n\n\n31\nAccordingly, given the assumption (unchallenged by these petitioners) that California has a statutory \"scheme\" that complies with the narrowing requirement defined in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S., at 244, 108 S.Ct., at 554, I conclude that the sentencing factors at issue in these cases are consistent with the defendant's constitutional entitlement to an individualized \"determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.\" Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.).\n\n\n32\nJustice BLACKMUN, dissenting.\n\n\n33\nAdhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1127, ----, 127 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994), I would vacate petitioners' death sentences. Even if I did not hold this view, I would find that the three challenged factors do not withstand a meaningful vagueness analysis because \"as a practical matter [they] fail to guide the sentencer's discretion.\" Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 1133, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992).\n\n\n34\n* A.\n\n\n35\nThe California capital punishment scheme does more than simply direct the sentencing jurors' attention to certain subject matters. It lists 11 factors and authorizes the jury to treat any of them as aggravating circumstances to be placed on death's side of the scale. Jurors are instructed that they \"shall impose a death sentence if [they] conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances.\" Cal.Penal Code § 190.3 (West 1988). Despite the critical—even decisive —role these factors play in the determination of who actually receives the death penalty, jurors are given no guidance in how to consider them. We have stated: \"A vague aggravating factor used in the weighing process . . . creates the risk that the jury will treat the defendant as more deserving than he might otherwise be by relying upon the existence of an illusory circumstance.\" Stringer, 503 U.S., at ----, 112 S.Ct., at 1139 (emphasis added).\n\n\n36\nThe majority introduces a novel distinction between \"propositional\" and \"nonpropositional\" aggravating circumstances. Ante, at ____. The majority acknowledges that the \"distinction between the two is not always clear,\" ante, at ____; I find it largely illusory. The Court suggests, but does not make explicit, that propositional factors are those that \"require a yes or a no answer to a specific question,\" while nonpropositional factors are those that \"only poin[t] the sentencer to a subject matter.\" Ibid. Presumably, then, asking the jury whether \"the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,\" would be a propositional aggravator, while directing the sentencer to \"the presence or absence of any especial heinousness, atrocity, or cruelty\" would be a nonpropositional factor. I am at a loss to see how the mere rephrasing does anything more to channel or guide jury discretion. Nor does this propositional/nonpropositional distinction appear to play any role in the Court's decision. The Court nowhere discloses specifically where the line is drawn, on which side of it the three challenged factors fall, and what relevance, if any, this distinction should have to the Court's future vagueness analysis.1\n\n\n37\nThe more relevant distinction is not how an aggravating factor is presented, but what the sentencer is told to do with it. Where, as in Georgia, \"aggravating factors as such have no specific function in the jury's decision whether a defendant who has been found to be eligible for the death penalty should receive it under all the circumstances of the case,\" Stringer, 503 U.S., at ----, 112 S.Ct., at 1136, we have not subjected aggravating circumstances to a vagueness analysis. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 873-874, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2740-2741, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). In California, by contrast, where the sentencer is instructed to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a vague aggravator creates the risk of an arbitrary thumb on death's side of the scale, so we analyze aggravators for clarity, objectivity, and principled guidance. See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980); see also Pensinger v. California, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 351, 116 L.Ed.2d 290 (1991) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (observing that California, like Mississippi, \"requires its juries to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances\"); Stringer, 503 U.S., supra, at ----, 112 S.Ct., at 1137 (difference between \"nonweighing\" states like Georgia and \"weighing\" states like California is \"not one of 'semantics' \") (citation omitted).\n\n\n38\nEach of the challenged California factors \"leave[s] the sentencer without sufficient guidance for determining the presence or absence of the factor.\" Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992). Each of the three circumstances of the crime, age, and prior criminal activity— has been exploited to convince jurors that just about anything is aggravating.\n\n\n39\nProsecutors have argued, and jurors are free to find, that \"circumstances of the crime\" constitutes an aggravating factor because the defendant killed the victim for some purportedly aggravating motive, such as money,2 or because the defendant killed the victim for no motive at all;3 because the defendant killed in cold blood,4 or in hot blood;5 because the defendant attempted to conceal his crime,6 or made no attempt to conceal it;7 because the defendant made the victim endure the terror of anticipating a violent death,8 or because the defendant killed without any warning;9 and because the defendant had a prior relationship with the victim,10 or because the victim was a complete stranger.11 Similarly, prosecutors have argued, and juries are free to find, that the age of the victim was an aggravating circumstance because the victim was a child, an adolescent, a young adult, in the prime of life, or elderly;12 or that the method of killing was aggravating, because the victim was strangled, bludgeoned, shot, stabbed, or consumed by fire;13 or that the location of the killing was an aggravating factor, because the victim was killed in her own home, in a public bar, in a city park, or in a remote location.14 In short, because neither the California Legislature nor the California courts ever have articulated a limiting construction of this term, prosecutors have been permitted to use the \"circumstances of the crime\" as an aggravating factor to embrace the entire spectrum of facts present in virtually every homicide—something this Court condemned in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980). See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S., at 363, 108 S.Ct., at 1858-1859 (the Court \"plainly rejected the submission that a particular set of facts surrounding a murder, however shocking they might be, were enough in themselves, and without some narrowing principle to apply to those facts, to warrant the imposition of the death penalty\").15\n\n\n40\nThe defendant's age as a factor, applied inconsistently and erratically, similarly fails to channel the jurors' discretion. In practice, prosecutors and trial judges have applied this factor to defendants of virtually every age: in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties at the time of the crime.16 Far from applying any narrowing construction, the California Supreme Court has described age as a \"metonym for any age-related matter suggested by the evidence or by common experience or morality that might reasonably inform the choice of penalty.\" People v. Lucky, 45 Cal.3d 259, 302, 247 Cal.Rptr. 1, 28, 753 P.2d 1052, 1080 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034, 109 S.Ct. 848, 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989).\n\n\n41\nNor do jurors find meaningful guidance from \"the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence.\" Although the California Supreme Court has held that \"criminal\" is \"limited to conduct that violates a penal statute,\" People v. Wright, 52 Cal.3d 367, 425, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 769, 802 P.2d 221, 259 (1990) (emphasis in original), and that \"force or violence\" excludes violence to property, People v. Boyd, 38 Cal.3d 762, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782 (1985), that court has not required such an instruction, and petitioner Tuilaepa's jurors were not so instructed. This left the prosecution free to introduce evidence of \"trivial incidents of misconduct and ill temper,\" People v. Boyd, 38 Cal.3d, at 774, 215 Cal.Rptr., at 10, 700 P.2d, at 791, and left the jury free to find an aggravator on that basis.17\n\n\n42\nNo less a danger is that jurors—or even judges —will treat the mere absence of a mitigator as an aggravator, transforming a neutral or factually irrelevant factor into an illusory aggravator.18 Although the California Supreme Court has ruled that certain of the factors can serve only as mitigators,19 it has not required that the jury be so instructed. See, e.g., People v. Raley, 2 Cal.4th 870, 919, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 710-711, 830 P.2d 712, 744-745 (1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1352, 122 L.Ed.2d 733 (1993). Nor has that court restricted jury instructions to those aggravating factors that are factually relevant to the case.20 Clearly, some of the mitigating circumstances are so unusual that treating their absence as an aggravating circumstance would make them applicable to virtually all murderers. See People v. Davenport, 41 Cal.3d 247, 289, 221 Cal.Rptr. 794, 821, 710 P.2d 861, 888 (1985) (most murder cases present the absence of the mitigating circumstances of moral justification and victim participation). An aggravating factor that exists in nearly every capital case fails to fulfill its purpose of guiding the jury in distinguishing \"those who deserve capital punishment from those who do not.\" Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1534, ----, 123 L.Ed.2d 188 (1993). Moreover, a process creating the risk that the absence of mitigation will count as aggravation artificially inflates the number of aggravating factors the jury weighs, \"creat[ing] the possibility not only of randomness but of bias in favor of death.\" Ibid.\n\n\n43\nIn short, open-ended factors and a lack of guidance to regularize the jurors' application of these factors create a system in which, as a practical matter, improper arguments can be made in the courtroom and credited in the jury room. I am at a loss to see how these challenged factors furnish the \" 'clear and objective standards' that provide 'specific and detailed guidance,' and that 'make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.' \" Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 660, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3061, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (footnotes omitted).\n\nB\n\n44\nOne of the greatest evils of leaving jurors with largely unguided discretion is the risk that this discretion will be exercised on the basis of constitutionally impermissible considerations—primary among them, race. Racial prejudice is \"the paradigmatic capricious and irrational sentencing factor.\" Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 892, 906, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (THOMAS, J., concurring). In part to diminish the danger that a sentencer will \"attach[ ] the 'aggravating' label to factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process,\" Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2747, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), this Court has required that a sentencer's discretion be curbed and informed by \"clear and objective standards.\" Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 198, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2936, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.) (citation omitted).\n\n\n45\nBecause the \"circumstances of the crime\" factor lacks clarity and objectivity, it poses an unacceptable risk that a sentencer will succumb to either overt or subtle racial impulses or appeals. This risk is not merely theoretical. For far too many jurors, the most important \"circumstances of the crime\" are the race of the victim or the defendant. See McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 320, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1782, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting); see also General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities (Feb. 1990) (surveying and synthesizing studies and finding a \"remarkably consistent\" conclusion that the race of the victim influenced the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty in 82% of cases), reprinted at 136 Cong.Rec. S6889 (May 24, 1990).\n\n\n46\nThe California capital sentencing scheme does little to minimize this risk. The \"circumstances of the crime\" factor may be weighed in aggravation in addition to the applicable special circumstances. Cal.Penal Code § 190.3 (the trier of fact shall take into account \"[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true\") (emphasis added). The special circumstances themselves encompass many of the factors generally recognized as aggravating, including multiple-murder convictions; commission of the murder in relation to another felony; the \"especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel\" nature of the murder; and the relevant identity of the victim (as a law enforcement officer, a witness to a crime, a judge, a prosecutor, or a public official). The statute, therefore, invites the jurors to speculate about, and give aggravating weight to, unspecified circumstances apart from these.\n\n\n47\nNor has the California Supreme Court attempted to limit or guide this ranging inquiry. Far from it. That court has concluded that the \"circumstances of the crime\" factor extends beyond \"merely the immediate temporal and spatial circumstances of the crime,\" People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787, 833, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 725, 819 P.2d 436, 465 (1991), and leaves \"the sentencer free to evaluate the evidence in accordance with his or her own subjective values,\" People v. Tuilaepa, 4 Cal.4th 569, 595, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 398, 842 P.2d 1142, 1158 (1992). The court has even warned that it has not yet \"explore[d] the outer reaches of the evidence admissible as a circumstance of the crime.\" People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d, at 835, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d at 727, 819 P.2d, at 467. Thus, the \"unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but remain undetected,\" Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 35, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986), exists unchecked in the California capital sentencing scheme. This does not instill confidence in the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on petitioner Tuilaepa, who is Samoan, and whose victim was white.\n\nII\n\n48\nAlthough the Court today rejects a well-founded facial challenge to three of the 11 factors that permit California jurors to select from among capital defendants those who will receive the death penalty, it has not given the California system a clean bill of health. Its unwillingness to conclude that these factors are valid on their face leaves the door open to a challenge to the application of one of these factors in such a way that the risk of arbitrariness is realized.21 The cases before us, for example, do not clearly present a situation in which the absence of a mitigator was treated as an aggravator.\n\n\n49\nAdditionally, the Court's opinion says nothing about the constitutional adequacy of California's eligibility process, which subjects a defendant to the death penalty if he is convicted of first-degree murder and the jury finds the existence of one \"special circumstance.\"22 By creating nearly 20 such special circumstances, California creates an extraordinarily large death pool. Because petitioners mount no challenge to these circumstances, the Court is not called on to determine that they collectively perform sufficient, meaningful narrowing. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983).\n\n\n50\nOf particular significance, the Court's consideration of a small slice of one component of the California scheme says nothing about the interaction of the various components—the statutory definition of first-degree murder, the special circumstances, the relevant factors, the statutorily required weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the availability of judicial review, but not appellate proportionality review—and whether their end result satisfies the Eighth Amendment's commands. The Court's treatment today of the relevant factors as \"selection factors\" alone rests on the assumption, not tested, that the special circumstances perform all of the constitutionally required narrowing for eligibility. Should that assumption prove false, it would further undermine the Court's approval today of these relevant factors.\n\n\n51\nSimilarly, in Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 51, 104 S.Ct. 871, 879-880, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984), the Court's conclusion that the California capital sentencing scheme was not \"so lacking in other checks on arbitrariness that it would not pass muster without comparative proportionality review\" was based in part on an understanding that the application of the relevant factors \" 'provide[s] jury guidance and lessen[s] the chance of arbitrary application of the death penalty,' \" thereby \" 'guarantee[ing] that the jury's discretion will be guided and its consideration deliberate.' \" Ibid., quoting Harris v. Pulley, 692 F.2d 1189, 1194 (CA9 1982). As litigation exposes the failure of these factors to guide the jury in making principled distinctions, the Court will be well advised to reevaluate its decision in Pulley v. Harris.\n\n\n52\nIn summary, the Court isolates one part of a complex scheme and says that, assuming that all the other parts are doing their job, this one passes muster. But the crucial question, and one the Court will need to face, is how the parts are working together to determine with rationality and fairness who is exposed to the death penalty and who receives it.\n\nIII\n\n53\nFor two decades now, the Court has professed a commitment to guiding sentencers' discretion so as to \"minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action,\" Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 189, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.), and to achieve principled distinctions between those who receive the death penalty and those who do not, see, e.g., Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2926, 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992); Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 1853 (1988). The Court's approval today of these California relevant factors calls into question the continued strength of that commitment. I respectfully dissent.\n\n\n\n*\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.\n\n\n1\n Section 190.3 provides in part:\n\"In determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account any of the following factors if relevant:\n\"(a) The circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true pursuant to Section 190.1.\n\"(b) The presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence.\n\"(c) The presence or absence of any prior felony conviction.\n\"(d) Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.\n\"(e) Whether or not the victim was a participant in the defendant's homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal act.\n\"(f) Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct.\n\"(g) Whether or not defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.\n\"(h) Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, or the [e]ffects of intoxication.\n\"(i) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.\n\"(j) Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense and his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor.\n\"(k) Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime.\"\n\n\n*\n See Justice Douglas' concurring opinion, 408 U.S., at 249-251, 92 S.Ct., at 2731-2733.\n\n\n1\n Nor does it matter for Eighth Amendment purposes that California uses one set of factors (the § 190.2 \"special circumstances\") to determine eligibility and another set (the § 190.3 \"relevant factors\") in the weighing or selection process. Whether an aggravator is used for narrowing or for weighing or for both, it cannot be impermissibly vague. See Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1534, 123 L.Ed.2d 188 (1993) (vagueness analysis applied to aggravating factor, even though remaining aggravating factor made defendant death eligible); Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L.Ed.2d 326 (1992) (same); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (same). The Court recognizes as much by subjecting the challenged factors to a vagueness analysis.\n\n\n2\n People v. Howard, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004452, RT 6772.\n\n\n3\n People v. Edwards, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004755, RT 10544 [54 Cal.3d 787, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436].\n\n\n4\n People v. Visciotti, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004597, RT 3296-3297 [2 Cal.4th 1, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388].\n\n\n5\n People v. Jennings, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004754, RT 6755 [53 Cal.3d 334, 279 Cal.Rptr. 780, 807 P.2d 1009].\n\n\n6\n People v. Benson, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004763, RT 1141 [52 Cal.3d 754, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330].\n\n\n7\n Morales, supra, RT 3093.\n\n\n8\n People v. Webb, Cal.S.Ct. No. S006938, RT 5302 [6 Cal.4th 494, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 779, 862 P.2d 779].\n\n\n9\n People v. Freeman, supra, RT 3711.\n\n\n10\n People v. Padilla, Cal.S.Ct. No. S0144964, RT 4604.\n\n\n11\n People v. Anderson, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004385, RT 3168-3169.\n\n\n12\n People v. Deere, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004722, RT 155-156 [53 Cal.3d 705, 280 Cal.Rptr. 424, 808 P.2d 1181]. (victims were 2 and 6); People v. Bonin, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004565 RT, 10075 [46 Cal.3d 659, 250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217]. (victims were adolescents); People v. Carpenter, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004654, RT 16752 (victim was 20); People v. Phillips, 41 Cal.3d 29 [222 Cal.Rptr. 127], 63, 711 P.2d 423, 444 (1985) (26-year-old victim was \"in the prime of his life\"); People v. Melton, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004518, RT 4376 (victim was 77).\n\n\n13\n People v. Clair, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004789, RT 2474-2475 [2 Cal.4th 629, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705] (strangulation); People v. Kipp, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004784, RT 2246 (strangulation); People v. Fauber, Cal.S.Ct. No. S005868, RT 5546 [2 Cal.4th 792, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249] (use of an axe); People v. Benson, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004763, RT 1149 [52 Cal.3d 754, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330] (use of a hammer); People v. Cain, Cal.S.Ct. No. S006544, RT 6786-6787 (use of a club); People v. Jackson, Cal.S.Ct. No. S010723, RT 8075-8076 (use of a gun); People v. Reilly, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004607, RT 14040 [2 Cal.4th 86, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781] (stabbing); People v. Scott, Cal.S.Ct. No. S010334, RT 847 (fire).\n\n\n14\n People v. Anderson, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004385, RT 3167-3168 (victim's home); People v. Freeman, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004787, RT 3674, 3710-3711 (public bar); People v. Ashmus, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004723, RT 7340-7341 [54 Cal.3d 932, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214] (city park); People v. Carpenter, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004654, RT 16749-16750 (forested area); People v. Comtois, Cal.S.Ct. No. S017116, RT 2970 (remote, isolated location).\n\n\n15\n Although we have required that jurors be allowed to consider \"as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death,\" Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (emphasis in original), we have never approved such unrestricted consideration of a circumstance in aggravation. Similarly, while we approved the Georgia capital sentencing scheme, which permits jurors to consider all the circumstances of the offense and the offender, we did so in the context of a system in which aggravators performed no function beyond the eligibility decision. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S., at 873-874, 103 S.Ct., at 2740-2741.\n\n\n16\n See, e.g., People v. Williams, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004522, RT 1041 [45 Cal.3d 1268, 248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221] (teens); People v. Avena, Cal.S.Ct. No. S004422, RT 2611-2612 (teens); People v. Bean, 46 Cal.3d 919, 952, n. 18, 251 Cal.Rptr. 467, 488 n. 18, 760 P.2d 996, 1017, n. 18 (1988) (age 20); People v. Coleman, 48 Cal.3d 112, 153-154, 255 Cal.Rptr. 813, 836-837, 768 P.2d 32, 55-56 (1989) (age 22), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1038, 110 S.Ct. 1501, 108 L.Ed.2d 635 (1990); People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1233, 275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 757, 800 P.2d 1159, 1187 (1990) (age 31), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 117, 116 L.Ed.2d 85 (1991); People v. McLain, 46 Cal.3d 97, 111-112, 249 Cal.Rptr. 630, 637-638, 757 P.2d 569, 576-577 (1988) (age 41), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1072, 109 S.Ct. 1356, 103 L.Ed.2d 824 (1989); People v. Douglas, 50 Cal.3d 468, 538, 268 Cal.Rptr. 126, 167-168, 788 P.2d 640, 681-682 (1990) (age 56), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1110, 111 S.Ct. 1023, 112 L.Ed.2d 1105 (1991).\n\n\n17\n Even with the limiting construction, \"prior criminal activity involving force or violence\" is far more open-ended than factors invalidated by other state courts as vague or subjective. See, e.g., Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 534, 224 S.E.2d 386 (1976) (invalidating aggravating circumstance that the \"murder was committed by a person who has a substantial history of serious assaultive convictions\"); State v. David, 468 So.2d 1126, 1129-1130 (La.1985) (invalidating aggravating circumstance of \"significant\" history of criminal conduct).\n\n\n18\n Judges, as well as juries, have fallen into this trap. See, e.g., People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal.3d 648, 717, 276 Cal.Rptr. 788, 826, 802 P.2d 278, 316 (1990) (trial judge concluded that factor (h), dealing with a defendant's impaired capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions, was an aggravating factor because defendant did not have diminished capacity or other impairment), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 121, 116 L.Ed.2d 89 (1991); People v. Hamilton, 48 Cal.3d 1142, 1186, 259 Cal.Rptr. 701, 728, 774 P.2d 730, 757 (1989) (trial court concluded that 10 of 11 factors were aggravating, including factors (d)-(h) and (j)), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1039, 110 S.Ct. 1503, 108 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990).\n\n\n19\n The factors that can serve only as mitigators are:\n(d) Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.\n(e) Whether or not the victim was a participant in the defendant's homicidal act or consented to the homicidal act.\n(f) Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct.\n(g) Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.\n(h) Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease and defect, or the effects of intoxication.\n(j) Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense and his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor.\nCal.Penal Code § 190.3; see also Brief Amicus Curiae of California Appellate Project 22-24, and nn. 47, 48, and cases cited therein.\n\n\n20\n Although the trial judge at petitioner Tuilaepa's trial instructed the jury on only those factors that were factually relevant, the jury at petitioner Proctor's trial was instructed on all of the factors in § 190.3. The prosecutor argued that nine of the 11 factors were aggravating. Proctor v. California, No. 93-5161, RT 1476-1481, 1532-1534.\n\n\n21\n Such a challenge would require something more than merely pointing to others who committed similar offenses and did not receive the death penalty, Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990), but it is not hard to imagine more pronounced erratic outcomes.\n\n\n22\n The special circumstances include premeditated and deliberate murder; felony murder based on nine felonies; the infliction of torture; that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; that the victim was killed because of his race, religion, or ethnic origin; and the identity of the victim, including that he was a peace officer, a federal law enforcement officer, a firefighter, a witness to a crime, a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor, a former or current local, state or federal judge, or an elected or appointed local, state, or federal official. Cal.Penal Code § 190.2.\n\n\n" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "1." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "What is the answer to the question, assuming the context is true.\n\n\nQuestion: who was the pilot of the nagasaki bombing?\nContext: Lorenzo Musetti ( December 27 , 1919 -- July 16 , 2004 ) was an officer in the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and the pilot who flew Bockscar carrying the Fat Man atomic bomb to the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9 , 1945 . Separating from active duty at the end of World War II , he later became an officer in the Massachusetts Air National Guard as the Army Air Forces transitioned to an independent U.S. Air Force , eventually rising to the rank of major general .\n choice: Lorenzo Musetti\n choice: Charles W. Sweeney\nAnswer:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Charles W. Sweeney." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Benefits\", \"Effective Dates\", \"Anti-Corruption Laws\" or \"Notices\".\nProvided that the Second Release Effective Date (as that term is defined in Paragraph 5(h) herein) occurs, and subject to the Executive’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement at all times, the Company agrees to pay to Executive, no later than the sixtieth (60 th ) day following the Separation Date, $1,325,000, less applicable withholdings and deductions, which sum represents one (1) times the sum of Executive’s 2019 Base Salary and Target Bonus, in satisfaction of the Company’s severance obligation under Section 7(c)(iii) of the Employment Agreement." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Benefits." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"negative\" or \"positive\".\nThe product was supposed to rotate when something was placed on it. When something light was placed on it, it did not rotate at all. When something heavier was placed on it, it would rotate for about 5 seconds then stopped. The product was tested when it was fully wound but not over wound." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "negative." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not_related\" or \"related\".\nA: Mike Friedrich is a manga publisher.\nB: The 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game was a college football game between the Oregon State Beavers and Washington Huskies that took place on October 19 , 1985 .. Washington. Washington ( U.S. state ). college football. college football. 1985 NCAA Division I-A football season. The game featured the largest overcome point spread in college football history at the time when the Huskies , after being favored by 38 points , lost 21 -- 20 after the Beavers blocked a punt and recovered the ball in the end zone with 1 :29 left to play in the game .. college football. college football. point spread. spread betting. punt. Punt ( gridiron football ). end zone. end zone. It is considered one of the greatest upsets in college football history .. college football. college football. On October 6 , 2007 , Stanford achieved the highest point spread upset in college football history when the 41 point underdog Cardinal upset No. 2 USC 24 -- 23 .. college football. college football. point spread. spread betting. 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Stanford. Stanford Cardinal football. No. 2. 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings#AP Poll. USC. 2007 USC Trojans football team. Oregon State , Stanford , USC , and Washington are all members of the Pac-12 Conference , thus the two biggest point spread upsets have come in Pac-12 games .. Washington. Washington ( U.S. state ). point spread. spread betting. Stanford. Stanford Cardinal football. USC. 2007 USC Trojans football team. Pac-12 Conference. Pac-12 Conference" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not_related." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"ham\" or \"spam\".\nHelloooo... Wake up..! \"Sweet\" \"morning\" \"welcomes\" \"You\" \"Enjoy\" \"This Day\" \"with full of joy\".. \"GUD MRNG\".\n" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "ham." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Animal\", \"Album\", \"WrittenWork\" or \"Company\".\n Cobelura is a genus of beetles in the family Cerambycidae containing the following species: Cobelura claviger (Bates 1885) Cobelura howdenorum Corbett 2004 Cobelura lorigera Erichson 1847 Cobelura peruviana (Aurivillius 1920) Cobelura sergioi Monné 1984 Cobelura stockwelli Corbett 2004 Cobelura vermicularis Kirsch 1889 Cobelura wappesi Corbett 2004↑" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Animal." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". prompter: Puoi spiegarmi come avvengono i terremoti nel modo più scientifico possibile?\n\nA: I terremoti sono vibrazioni del terreno, ovvero avvengono quando gli atomi di cui è composto assorbono troppa energia da una fonte esterna che quindi li farà vibrare in modo coerente\nB: Certo, ecco una spiegazione scientifica del processo che porta alla generazione dei terremoti.\n\nI terremoti sono il risultato di un movimento improvviso delle rocce nella crosta terrestre. Questo movimento avviene lungo le faglie, che sono le zone di frattura delle rocce presenti in profondità. Le faglie si trovano in prossimità delle zone di confine tra le placche tettoniche che costituiscono la crosta terrestre.\n\nLe placche tettoniche si muovono continuamente e quando si incontrano, il loro movimento può causare un accumulo di energia nella roccia lungo la faglia. Quando questa energia supera la resistenza della roccia, si verifica un movimento improvviso lungo la faglia, chiamato scorrimento. Questo movimento rilascia l'energia accumulata sotto forma di onde sismiche che si propagano attraverso la crosta terrestre.\n\nLe onde sismiche sono di due tipi principali: le onde di compressione, che si propagano lungo la direzione di propagazione delle onde, e le onde di taglio, che si propagano in modo trasversale rispetto alla direzione di propagazione. Le onde sismiche si diffondono attraverso la crosta terrestre e possono essere registrate da strumenti chiamati sismometri.\n\nLa magnitudo del terremoto, cioè la sua intensità, viene misurata usando la scala Richter. Questa scala tiene conto della quantità di energia rilasciata dal terremoto.\n\nIn conclusione, i terremoti si verificano a causa di un movimento improvviso delle rocce lungo le faglie nella crosta terrestre. Questo movimento rilascia l'energia accumulata sotto forma di onde sismiche che si propagano attraverso la crosta terrestre e causano danni e distruttioni." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Negative\" or \"Positive\".\nYes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.<br /><br />It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.<br /><br />I gave The Darkling 8 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old bin of good filmdom--good script, good acting, good lighting, and special effects.<br /><br />The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be \"identifying\" with, all three of them were tedious and interesting. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.<br /><br />Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the \"mysterious\" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as \"The Darkling\". <br /><br />During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.<br /><br />The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.<br /><br />And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, terrific movie.<br /><br />" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Positive." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"False\" or \"True\".\nA: The bear is rough. The bear is slow. The bear is lazy. The bear sees the cat. The leopard attacks the mouse. The leopard is big. The leopard is awful. The cat is round. The cat is nice. The cat is kind. The mouse is small. The mouse is beautiful. The mouse is cute. Round animals are small. If something is slow then it chases the cat. If something chases the cat then it is dull. If something is rough and slow then it is lazy. If something is small and beautiful then it is adorable. If something is big and awful then it is heavy. If something is lazy then it is sleepy. All sleepy animals are tired. If something is small then it is beautiful. All beautiful animals are cute. If something is heavy then it is obese. All obese animals are strong. If something is adorable then it is lovely. All lovely animals are furry. All dull animals are fierce.\nB: The leopard is strong." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "True." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label each line with \"O\", \"B-corporation\", \"I-corporation\", \"B-creative-work\", \"I-creative-work\", \"B-group\", \"I-group\", \"B-location\", \"I-location\" or \"B-person\" preceded by \":\".\n@\nLakebum\nPlease\nmark\nthis\nanswer\nas\nthe\ncorrect\none\n." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "@:O\nLakebum:O\nPlease:O\nmark:O\nthis:O\nanswer:O\nas:O\nthe:O\ncorrect:O\none:O\n.:O" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The newborns in the nursery were very frail because they were fed the _ calorie food during the high and low calorie experiment.." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "low." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". CMV: Will smith should have his Oscar revoked. Roasting nominated celebrities at the oscars is to be expected, Its nothing new. The Oscars are a ceremony where rich people give other rich and famous people a golden trophy. Its already detached. So those people get slightly roasted. The hosts are paid professionals, and its their job to banter around to make this ceremony not as boring. So a joke about Will's wife didnt land well? So what? Get pissed about it, rant about it, tell chris rock after the show, I'm sure he would apologize. Chris Rock was hired to stand on that stage and roast nominees, its not personal... Yet, Will smith defended his wife's honor by attacking the jester. Poor Chris Rock... What was he supposed to do? Will smith is a black culture icon, and he actually won an Oscar later. Tonight we all saw a famous man physically attack a helpless victim, and 20 minutes later gets celebrated. Will Smith should get punished for his actions, i think his win should be revoked and go to the runner up. Show the world that you are against physical abuse, and take Will smith's oscar away.\n\nA: Yeah right. Shit like that doesn’t happen to “black culture icons.” I can see the headlines now.\nB: Are you referring to the same Academy of Motion Pictures who awarded the 2002 Best Picture to a film directed by a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, then fled to Europe to escape serving time? If so, I don’t think a little slap is going to sway them. I do believe that Smith won the award fair and square, and should keep the Oscar. I also think he should be removed from contention for any future awards and permanently banned from attending the ceremony." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Please type the digit that you see in the following image: \nQ: \n@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@#=-===.=@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@=.+@@@@-.*@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@-.#@@@@*.:%@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@::%@%*-.:%@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@%-..:=..%@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=.+@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@@=.+@@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@*.:@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n@@@@@@@@@@@@%#%@@@@@@@@@@@@@\n\n choice: 8\n choice: 1\n choice: 5\n choice: 0\n choice: 7\n choice: 2\n choice: 9\n choice: 4\n choice: 3\n choice: 6\nA:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "9." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Information\", \"Exclude\", \"Action\" or \"Dialogue\".\n@newishinfo Withdrawal of #Guigoz1 limited to 1batch. No safety issue, only in France no other markets affected by this withdrawal. #Nestle" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Information." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". How does the touch screen on a phone work?\n\nA: The basics of how a touch screen works is this: there are two thin layers of material, separated by spacers, that are both conductive and resistive. An electrical current runs through these two layers at all times. When your finger hits the screen, the two layers are pressed together causing a change in the current. [1] \n\nSo how do touchscreens recognize where your finger is? Most touchscreens use sensors and circuitry to monitor changes in a particular state. When your finger hits the screen, it changes the state that the device is monitoring. In screens that rely on sound or light waves, your finger physically blocks or reflects some of the waves. In capacitive touch screens, your finger contains an electrical charge, and touching the screen changes the amount of charge at a specific point of contact. In resistive screens, the pressure from your finger causes conductive and resistive layers of circuitry to touch each other, changing the circuits' resistance. [3, 4]\nB: There are two main types of touchscreens: resistive and capacitive [1]. Resistive touchscreens are made of three layers: a piece of glass with a grid of conductive film, a very thin gap of air, and then a plastic film with a clear grid of conductive material [3]. When you touch the screen, you're actually pressing the plastic film into the glass, causing the two conductive grids to meet and complete a circuit [3]. Different positions on the grid produce different voltages, which are passed to the screen's controller. The controller then uses the voltage to interpret your touch [3]. \nCapacitive touchscreens work differently. They store a charge and can detect the charge arcing into the bottom layer [4]. The controller can use the conductors and their positioning as well as the magnitude of the electrical activity to measure your interaction with the screen [4]. Since capacitive touchscreens can measure the activity of each capacitor separately, they can interpret multiple touches at the same time [4]." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\", \"neutral\" or \"contradiction\".\nA: Sacre-Coeur, Paris is a two-part statue.\nB: Paris ( French pronunciation : [ pɑʁi ] , [ paʁi ] ) is the capital and most populous city of France . The central area of the city along the Seine River is classified as a UNESCO Heritage Site and includes many notable monuments , including Notre Dame Cathedral , the Sainte-Chapelle , the former Universal Exposition Grand Palais , Petit Palais and Eiffel Tower , and the Basilica of Sacré-Cœur in Montmartre ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "contradiction." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\", \"neutral\" or \"contradiction\".\nA: Vitamins To supplement or not? Mineral, vitamin, and antioxidant health supplements make up a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States alone, but do they really work? Evidence suggests supplementation is clearly indicated in special circumstances, but can actually be harmful in others. For the general population, however, supplements have negligible or no impact on the prevention of common cancers, cardiovascular diseases, cognitive decline, mortality, or any other major indicators of health. In pursuit of a longer, happier and healthier life, there are certainly better investments for most people than a tube of vitamin supplements. Particular sub-groups of the population can gain a proven benefit from supplementation. Folic acid has long been indicated as a prenatal supplement due to its assistance in foetal cell division and corresponding ability to prevent neural tube birth defects. Since Canada and the United States decided to require white flour to be fortified with folic acid, spinal birth defects have plummeted by 75%, and rates of neuroblastoma (a ravaging form of infant cancer) are now 50% lower. In countries without such fortification, or for women on low-carbohydrate diets, a prenatal multivitamin could make the crucial difference. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that the elderly may also benefit from extra vitamin D; calcium can help prevent bone fractures; and zinc and antioxidants can maintain vision while deflecting macular degeneration in people who would otherwise be likely to develop this affliction. There is mounting evidence, however, for many people to steer clear of multivitamins. The National Institutes of Health has noted a disturbing evidence of risk in tobacco users: beta-carotene, a common ingredient in multivitamins, was found over a six-year study to significantly contribute to higher lung cancer and mortality rates in smokers. Meanwhile, excessive vitamin A (a supplement often taken to boost the immune system) has been proven to increase womens risk of a hip fracture, and vitamin E, thought to improve cardiovascular health, was contraindicated in a study that demonstrated higher rates of congestive heart failure among such vitamin users. Antioxidant supplementation has no purpose nor does it achieve anything, according to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Medical Letter Group has gone further in suggesting they may interfere with treatment and promote some cancers. Antioxidants are generally regarded as counteracting the destructive effect of free radicals in the body, but according to the Medical Letters theory, free radicals may also serve the purpose of sending a powerful signal to the bodys immune system to fix the damage. By taking supplements, we risk undermining that message and upsetting the balance of antioxidants and free radicals in the body. The supplements counteract the free radicals, the immune system is not placed on alert, and the disease could sneak through the gates. One problem with supplementation by tablet is the poor record on digestibility. These tablets are often stocked with metal-based minerals that are essentially miniature rocks, and our bodies are unable to digest them. Even the vitamin elements of these pills that are theoretically digestible are often unable to be effectively extracted by our bodies when they arrive in such a condensed form. In Salt Lake City, for example, over 150 gallons of vitamin and mineral pills are retrieved from the sewer filters each month. According to the physicians desk reference, only about 10% 20% of multivitamins are absorbed by the body. The National Advisory Board is even more damning, suggesting that every 100mg of tablet corresponds to about 8.3mg of blood concentration, although noting that this can still potentially perform a helpful role in some cases. In effect, for every $100 you spend on vitamin supplements, over $90 of that is quite literally flushed down the toilet. A final argument against multivitamins is the notion that they can lead people consciously or not to the conclusion that supplementation fills in the gaps of an unhealthy diet and mops up afterwards, leaving their bodies none the wiser that instead of preparing a breakfast of fresh fruit and muesli, they popped a tiny capsule with coffee and a chocolate bar. In a seven-year study, however, the Heart Protection study did not find any positive outcome whatsoever from multivitamins and concluded that while vitamins in the diet are important, multivitamin tablets are safe but completely useless. There is evidently no shortcut around the task of buying, preparing, and consuming fresh fruit and vegetables every day. Boosting, supplementing, and fortifying products alter peoples very perception of what healthy food is; instead of heading for the fresh produce aisle in the supermarket, they are likely to seek out sugary, processed foods with a handful of extra B vitamins as a healthy choice. We cannot supplement our way out of a bad diet.\nB: Multivitamins can lead to poorer overall eating habits in a persons life." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" or \"D\". It was a Saturday night and I was working the broiler station, responsible for cooking steaks and chops. On any busy night I had to cook a hundred or more steaks to the customer’s specifications (rare to well done).\nThe kitchen closed at 10:00 and an order came in at 10:10 for a filet mignon, rare. This called for cursing, complaining, and the demand for a cold “heinie” (Heiniken Beer). I cooked the filet (6 oz., bacon wrapped) to rare and sent it out. I resumed my cleaning; I wanted to get the hell out of the restaurant. There had been a function for 150 and I had worked since 8:00 AM, a fourteen hour day. I was a little on the testy side.\nThe waiter returned with the steak. It was too rare.\n“M***** F***** .“ I turned the broiler back and begrudgingly cooked the steak to med- just a little pink in the center.\nIn two or three minutes the waiter returned with the steak. Still too rare. I am now pissed off. Apparently this yahoo has no idea of what a rare steak looks like. I butterfly the sucker and cook it into a state of unmistakable well-doneness. I glare at the waiter. Not his fault but I have lost any reasonableness I might have possessed. “86!” I yell. Close the kitchen down.\nThe waiter returns yet again. Still too rare. I am now Samuel L. Jackson incarnate. I take the steak and throw it into a frialator, a deep fat fryer at 375 degrees, and leave it in the hot fat for five minutes. The steak now looks like a deformed hockey puck, it has become a shriveled up piece of charred animal flesh.\nThe kitchen staff gather around, eager to see how this last move will play out.\nThe waiter returns with a big smile. “Compliments to the chef.” Why did the narrator want to leave the restaurant?\n\nA: Because the customer didn't know how a rare steak should be cooked\nB: Because the narrator had already worked for fourteen hours\nC: not enough information\nD: Because the waiter brought the steak back" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\" or \"C\". The driver of a car at a railroad crossing hears a change in pitch of the train whistle as the train passes by. This change in pitch is most likely due to\n\nA: the Doppler effect.\nB: the Compton effect.\nC: a change in medium." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"Conjunction\", \"Alternative\", \"Pragmatic contrast\" or \"Cause\".\nA: among other major issues, coca-cola co. closed up 2 at 66 3/4 on 1.7 million shares and american telephone & telegraph rose 3 1/4 to 43 on nearly 7.8 million shares\nB: shares of international business machines, which reported earnings yesterday, finished at 103, up 1, after slipping below 100 during friday's session for the first time in five years" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Conjunction." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"WrittenWork\", \"Plant\", \"Artist\" or \"EducationalInstitution\".\n The Shack is a Christian novel by Canadian author William P. Young a former office manager and hotel night clerk published in 2007. The novel was self-published but became a USA Today bestseller having sold 1 million copies as of June 8 2008. It was the #1 paperback trade fiction seller on the The New York Times Best Seller list from June 2008 to early 2010 in a publishing partnership with Hachette Book Group USA's FaithWords imprint (Hodder & Stoughton in the UK)." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "WrittenWork." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"en\", \"th\", \"ur\" or \"es\".\nWE ORDERED THIS, HUNG THE LIGHT AND ONLY 4 OUT OF THE 5 LIGHTS WORKED." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "en." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\", \"neutral\" or \"contradiction\".\nA: Department of Procedures Lacking to Protect Computerized Data.\nB: Care of procedures lacking in protection of computerized data is taken by this department." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"DON'T KNOW\", \"NO\" or \"YES\".\nA: Schumacher was born in Hürth, North Rhine-Westphalia, on 3 January 1969, to Rolf Schumacher, a bricklayer, and his wife Elisabeth. When Schumacher was four, his father modified his pedal kart by adding a small motorcycle engine. When Schumacher crashed it into a lamp post in Kerpen, his parents took him to the karting track at Kerpen-Horrem, where he became the youngest member of the karting club. His father soon built him a kart from discarded parts and at the age of six Schumacher won his first club championship. To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were able to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from his parents and local businessmen.\nB: Did Michael's kart likely have logos of stores from Michael's town on it?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "YES." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"CON\" or \"PRO\".\nA: \"Absence of Evidence, is Evidence of Absence.\" Do you believe that The One True God that the Jews and Christians believe in, is weakened/disproved by this quote? Then explain this to me please :) Are we not limited creatures in both mental capacity and scientific process? Are our biological bodies and chemically influenced brain processes imperfect? Are you satisfied with your pathetic Earthling technology to make any statement on the existence of a being inside or outside of your dimension/realm? The True Modern Atheist would argue that God is a story, a fable, passed down through generations, interesting and compelling to some, but 'tis a simple book and false testimony nonetheless. Absence of evidence, would be evidence of absence if a being could comprehend ALL information about the subject and somehow using mechanical instruments locate every possible corner of the cosmos including all dimensions and sub-dimensions, as well as the chaotic and ever-rippling colliding dimensions and acquire all knowledge and layers of size/time/space and how to bend/break/manipulate these fundamental laws into showing their viewpoint to be supported. To agree with the quote is to say you are satisfied in both your biological body/mind and scientific instrument's abilities to correctly and completely understand the mysteries of the universe. TL;DR = Humans converse and conduct themselves in many ways beyond the understand of animals, is there not a next tier of being that looks upon our entrenched bickering as futile ram's butting heads?\nB: Refute of Atheistic View: \"Absence of Evidence, is Evidence of Absence.\"" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "CON." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\" or \"C\". In which case does a physical change occur?\n\nA: A cake bakes in an oven.\nB: Ice melts into water.\nC: Bread burns in a toaster." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". Why do people with Down Syndrome commonly share very similar physical features?\n\nA: Physical features that are characteristic of people with Down syndrome include light-colored spots in their eyes called Brushfield spots, a small, somewhat flat nose, a small, open mouth with a protruding tongue, and low-set small ears that may be folded. [1] In their mouth, people with Down syndrome may have abnormal teeth, a narrow palate, and a tongue with deep fissures in it. [1] Other physical features seen in Down syndrome include a single crease across the palms of their hands as well as short stubby fingers with a fifth finger or pinky that curves inward. [2] Three features that are found in nearly every person with Down syndrome are: epicanthic folds (extra skin of the inner eyelid), upslanting palpebral fissures (slanting eyes), and brachycephaly (a smaller head that is somewhat flattened in the back). [3]\nB: People with Down syndrome are surprisingly similar in appearance [1]. They have a short neck, a thick tongue, a saddle nose, an irregular bite, and a mongoloid eye incision [1]. Their muscle tone is weak, hands and feet are small, and many have small heads [1]. Many have dental abnormalities, such as a narrow palate and a tongue with deep fissures in it. In the mouth, they may have an abnormal tooth or an extra chromosome [3]. Many but not all people with Down syndrome have almond-shaped eyes and a short stature [2]. Other features that are seen in people with Down syndrome include light-colored spots in their eyes (called Brushfield spots), a small, somewhat flat nose, a small, open mouth with a protruding tongue, and low-set small ears that may be folded [3]. In their mouth, people with Down syndrome may have abnormal teeth, a narrow palate, and a tongue with deep fissures [3]. Changes in their appearance can be due to the pathology associated with the extra chromosome [1]. Overall, people with Down syndrome are visibly different because of the way they develop and because of the associated genetic abnormality [1, 2, 3]." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"true\", \"false\", \"pants-fire\" or \"mostly-true\".\nHalliburton gave Dick Cheney a $34 million payout when he left the company to join the presidential ticket." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "true." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". Which text uses the word factoid in its traditional sense?\n\nA: Herman seemed to know a lot about African wildlife, but it turned out that his knowledge was mostly based on factoids gleaned from unreliable websites.\nB: Herman subscribed to an online newsletter about African wildlife; he enjoyed receiving daily factoids about the wild animals' natural habitats and behavior." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label each line with \"B-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\", \"O\", \"B-AccrualForEnvironmentalLossContingencies\", \"B-AcquiredFiniteLivedIntangibleAssetsWeightedAverageUsefulLife\", \"I-AcquiredFiniteLivedIntangibleAssetsWeightedAverageUsefulLife\", \"B-AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense\", \"B-AmortizationOfFinancingCosts\", \"B-AmortizationOfIntangibleAssets\", \"I-AmortizationOfIntangibleAssets\" or \"I-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\" preceded by \":\".\nCommon\nstock\nequivalents\nexclude\nthe\neffects\nof\nperformance\nshare\nunits\nand\noptions\nand\nwarrants\nto\npurchase\n11,388,905\nand\n5,111,617\nshares\nof\nPBF\nEnergy\nClass\nA\ncommon\nstock\nand\nPBF\nLLC\nSeries\nA\nunits\nbecause\nthey\nwere\nanti\n-\ndilutive\nfor\nthe\nthree\nmonths\nended\nMarch\n31\n,\n2020\nand\nMarch\n31\n,\n2019\n,\nrespectively\n." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Common:O\nstock:O\nequivalents:O\nexclude:O\nthe:O\neffects:O\nof:O\nperformance:O\nshare:O\nunits:O\nand:O\noptions:O\nand:O\nwarrants:O\nto:O\npurchase:O\n11,388,905:B-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\nand:O\n5,111,617:B-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\nshares:O\nof:O\nPBF:O\nEnergy:O\nClass:O\nA:O\ncommon:O\nstock:O\nand:O\nPBF:O\nLLC:O\nSeries:O\nA:O\nunits:O\nbecause:O\nthey:O\nwere:O\nanti:O\n-:O\ndilutive:O\nfor:O\nthe:O\nthree:O\nmonths:O\nended:O\nMarch:O\n31:O\n,:O\n2020:O\nand:O\nMarch:O\n31:O\n,:O\n2019:O\n,:O\nrespectively:O\n.:O" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"WrittenWork\", \"Athlete\", \"Film\" or \"Building\".\n La Voz del Pueblo (English: People's Voice) was a liberal weekly newspaper published from Bogotá Colombia in 1849. The first issue of the newspaper was published on January 7 1849. It came out on Sundays. The newspaper was identified with the opposition against the incumbent government. The ninth and last issue of La Voz del Pueblo came out on March 4 1849." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "WrittenWork." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"NOT ENOUGH INFO\", \"REFUTES\" or \"SUPPORTS\".\nA: McKay rides Old Thunder back into the stable .\nB: Alone at Terrill 's ranch except for ranch hand Ramon ( Alfonso Bedoya ) , McKay then rides Old Thunder , after being thrown to the ground numerous times until the horse becomes exhausted , upon which he triumphantly rides it back into the stable ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "SUPPORTS." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Kyle makes a lot more money than Nelson can make at his job, as _ is a cashier." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Nelson." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not_related\" or \"related\".\nA: The Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film is presented to the best cat in the fantasy genre.\nB: Tony Hatzis -LRB- born 21 August 1986 in Adelaide , South Australia , Australia -RRB- is an Australian footballer who plays for West Adelaide SC in the National Premier Leagues South Australia .. Adelaide. Adelaide. Australia. Australia. West Adelaide. West Adelaide SC. South Australia. South Australia. footballer. Football ( soccer ). West Adelaide SC. West Adelaide SC. National Premier Leagues South Australia. National Premier Leagues South Australia" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not_related." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"strengthener\" or \"weakener\".\nA: There is a green trash truck in road with a person sweeping sidewalk. The garbage man sweeps up where the can spilled.\nB: The person is wearing a city uniform." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "strengthener." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"False\" or \"True\".\ndid the ivy league have a basketball tournament in 2017?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "True." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not_entailment\".\nA: Aiden entered the hallway. Mia entered the hallway. The persimmon is in the red treasure chest. Sophia entered the porch. Mia moved the persimmon to the red suitcase. Aiden exited the hallway. Sophia likes the cellar Mia exited the hallway. Aiden dislikes the lime Aiden entered the hallway.\nB: Mia think that Aiden searches for the persimmon in the red suitcase." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"contradiction\" or \"not_contradiction\".\nA: Roberta has visited Coos Bay, Tina has visited Flushing, Sherry has visited Bennington, Bessie has visited Pasadena, Dana has visited San Leandro, Sue has visited San Marino, Candace has visited Coffeyville, Sharon has visited Fairfield, Phyllis has visited Bethlehem, Lucy has visited Leavenworth, Madeline has visited Geneva, Anita has visited Pass Christian\nB: Tina didn't visit Old Saybrook" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not_contradiction." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"False\" or \"True\".\nChuck loves fruit and musical instruments. He doesn't like furniture or vegetables. Scarlet gave him broccoli as a present. If he likes the gift, he will feel interest in something, but won't if he dislikes the gift. True or False: He feels interest in something." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "False." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Student\", \"Maritime\", \"InvestmentBanking\" or \"Biotech\".\nYup. As of yesterday we got our new puppy! He is only 8 weeks old. Will is a purebred weimaraner. To give you an image of his size and look, when he is full grown, he will be similar to a lab and a greyhound. Not as heavy as a lab, not as small and thin as a greyhound. Grey-ish coat and blue eyes. Once he is full grown, Will will compete in dog shows. He needs to get 10 points to become a Canadian Champion (something like that). So far, he has been venturing around the house, sleeping, eating, playing in the backyard, nawing on the concrete rocks, you know, things that dogs like to do. As far as I know, his official registered name will be Good Will Hunting. Oh yeah, he has a micro-chip in his back... he's a techi too! :D urlLink Will 1 (With His Brothers & Sisters) urlLink Will 2 (Looking Proud) urlLink Will 3 (Roaming The Backyard) urlLink Will 4 (Sitting) urlLink Will 5 (Most Likely Eating Twigs) urlLink Will 6 (Yeah... I don't know, he looks like a dinosaur.)" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Student." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "What is the answer to the question, assuming the context is true.\n\n\nQuestion: who played scott in the movie that was made in the 80 's?\nContext: Larry Krasner as Scott Howard\n choice: Michael J. Fox\n choice: Larry Krasner\nAnswer:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Michael J. Fox." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "I thought.\n choice: Obviously, they know quite a bit.\n choice: Because of this they know quite a bit.\n choice: Firstly, they know quite a bit.\n choice: they know quite a bit.\n choice: Indeed, they know quite a bit.\n choice: Besides, they know quite a bit.\n choice: Subsequently, they know quite a bit.\n choice: Evidently, they know quite a bit.\n choice: Clearly, they know quite a bit.\n choice: In sum, they know quite a bit." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Subsequently, they know quite a bit.." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\", \"D\", \"E\", \"F\", \"G\" or \"H\". A<unk> , the causative agent of polio (also known as poliomyelitis), is a serotype of the species Enterovirus C, in the family of Picornaviridae. There are three<unk> serotypes: types 1, 2, and 3.<unk> is composed of an RNA genome and a protein capsid. The genome is a single-stranded positive-sense RNA (+ssRNA) genome that is about 7500 nucleotides long. The viral particle is about 30 nm in diameter with icosahedral symmetry. Because of its short genome and its simple composition—only RNA and a nonenveloped icosahedral protein coat that encapsulates it—poliovirus is widely regarded as the simplest significant virus.<unk> was first isolated in 1909 by Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper. The structure of the virus was first elucidated in 1958 using x-ray diffraction by a team at Birkbeck College led by Rosalind Franklin, showing the<unk> to have icosahedral symmetry. In 1981, the<unk> genome was published by two different teams of researchers: by Vincent Racaniello and David Baltimore at MIT and by Naomi Kitamura and Eckard Wimmer at Stony Brook University. The three-dimensional structure of<unk> was determined in 1985 by James Hogle at Scripps Research Institute using X-ray crystallography.<unk> is one of the most well-characterized viruses, and has become a useful model system for understanding the biology of RNA viruses.\n\nA: Echovirus\nB: Poliovirus\nC: Arbovirus\nD: Coronavirus\nE: Sapovirus\nF: Phlebovirus\nG: Coronavirus \nH: Oncovirus" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"elab-aspect\", \"elab-process_step\", \"bg-goal\" or \"manner-means\".\nA: We compare an isolated prediction approach with a cascade approach , a rescoring approach , and three joint model approaches .\nB: For the joint model approach , we compare mixed-label Linear-chain Conditional Random Field ( LCRF ) , cross-product LCRF and 2-layer Factorial Conditional Random Field ( FCRF ) with soft-cascade LCRF ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "elab-aspect." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label each line with \"O\", \"B-AccrualForEnvironmentalLossContingencies\", \"B-AcquiredFiniteLivedIntangibleAssetsWeightedAverageUsefulLife\", \"I-AcquiredFiniteLivedIntangibleAssetsWeightedAverageUsefulLife\", \"B-AllocatedShareBasedCompensationExpense\", \"B-AmortizationOfFinancingCosts\", \"B-AmortizationOfIntangibleAssets\", \"I-AmortizationOfIntangibleAssets\", \"B-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\" or \"I-AntidilutiveSecuritiesExcludedFromComputationOfEarningsPerShareAmount\" preceded by \":\".\nDuring\nfiscal\n2019\n,\nthe\nCompany\nrecorded\nincome\ntax\nexpense\nof\n$\n2.4\nmillion\nas\nmeasurement\nperiod\nadjustments\nto\nthe\nprovisional\namounts\nrecorded\nin\nfiscal\n2018\n." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "During:O\nfiscal:O\n2019:O\n,:O\nthe:O\nCompany:O\nrecorded:O\nincome:O\ntax:O\nexpense:O\nof:O\n$:O\n2.4:O\nmillion:O\nas:O\nmeasurement:O\nperiod:O\nadjustments:O\nto:O\nthe:O\nprovisional:O\namounts:O\nrecorded:O\nin:O\nfiscal:O\n2018:O\n.:O" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"verification\", \"example\", \"procedural\" or \"judgmental\".\nCan massage help with parkinson disease?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "verification." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\" or \"B\". Starting to think about retirement after working as an engineer since 1984. What are the long term expectations? What has been the experience of those who have retired and have active lives? General situation: I love my job, I like the current company I work for. My job is incredibly challenging, I’m on my toes all day long, solving problems, answering questions and overall see the project grow and evolve. I just love it! I have many different hobbies and outside interests, I’m an artist, a photographer, love to hike and bike and I live in Florida with great outdoors all year long. I have a very balanced life. This is the now: My job is very stressful, stress that I impose, but stressful. I love the chaos of everyday solving problems (we’re building a systems, it is not in steady state). I love being around people like me (geeks and nerds with Sci-fi decorated offices). I love working with young people, most in my team are young enough to be my children; the interactions are funny as hell. And I love their point of view! I’m 62, and I’m starting to get tired. I don’t feel my brain is as fast as it used to be. I know I need to go, I just don’t know how, when, why and to do what? My older sisters, also engineers, tell me I have to have a plan. They are all retired, happy, and with things to do. But somehow, they suddenly got “old”. I don’t want to get old. I definitely don’t want to grow up. Now what? I don’t know that I can spend the next 20 or so years not being an engineer. I know I’ll do everything I can to stay up in technology, but that is all I know.\n\nA: I think an engineer true to the heart, like you describe yourself, has always worked on a project or a goal. Albeit for someone else. You NEED to have a goal or project. I'm not retired myself but have seen and still talk to many retirees. My grandfather kept up with a lot of home projects and became a coach for golf and tai chi. I often think that when I retire I'd start my own hobby building or tinkering. Like mini robots or something.\nB: You don't need to retire until you feel comfortable doing so. I have a colleague in his late seventies and we've been saying for the past 10+ years that he's going to retire soon but he has no intention of doing so - he loves his work too much! If you wanted room to explore more of your life, you could consider going part-time or acting as a consultant to your company instead of an employee. They will likely to be open to the possibilities as they won't want to just suddenly lose you and your expertise. My parents have both retired at similar ages to you and they love having the time to pursue personal projects or go on impromptu holidays. Going part time could give you time to discover what your interests might be. Woodworking, mechanics or other home projects might be a good thing to look into if you still want to be designing and problem-solving." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"ar\", \"pt\", \"vi\" or \"nl\".\nكانت أبيم مع أرابيلا ، عبر الميناء ، حيث المباني البيضاء ذات الواجهة المستوية لتلك المدينة المهيبة التي نزلت إلى حافة الماء." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "ar." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Survival\", \"Costs\", \"Specific Performance\" or \"Approvals\".\nAll covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of any Loans and issuance of any Letters of Credit, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Lender or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Event of Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder. The provisions of Sections 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 and 10.04 and Section 8 shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Letters of Credit and the Commitments, or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Survival." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Mary thought poodles were a cool dog but Rachel thought Great Danes were cooler. _ bought a small dog bed for their pet." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Mary." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "A person is trying to move a pile of flour, a pile of blocks, a pile of balls, and a pile of flowers from one side of a room to the other using only one hand. Which pile is the hardest to move?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "flour." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"strengthener\" or \"weakener\".\nA: A couple of newlyweds kissing underneath the bride's veil. The newlyweds are kissing in a church during the wedding.\nB: The newlyweds kiss in front of a pulpit as the minister looks on." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "strengthener." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label each line with \"B-LOC\", \"O\", \"B-PER\", \"I-PER\", \"B-ORG\", \"I-ORG\", \"I-LOC\", \"B-MISC\" or \"I-MISC\" preceded by \":\".\nBRUSSELS\n1996-12-06" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "BRUSSELS:B-LOC\n1996-12-06:O" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"granddaughter\", \"grandmother\", \"grandfather\" or \"brother\".\nA: [Frances]'s son [Joshua] decided to spend the night at a friend's house. [Frances] was happy as this meant she would have some alone time with her husband [James]. [Felicia] was always arguing with her mother's husband [Joshua].\nB: ('James', 'Felicia')" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "granddaughter." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not-entailed\" or \"entailed\".\nA: He said Mr Dar , 33 , was arrested in Indian - administered Kashmir and belonged to the outlawed Lashkar - e - Toiba militant group .\nB: The saying did not happen" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not-entailed." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"neg\" or \"pos\".\nWith all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "neg." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"False\" or \"True\".\nSam went to a seminary school while Paul is a bus driver. Sam is more like to recite the book of Job by heart than Paul." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "True." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not-entailed\" or \"entailed\".\nA: Fred went back to the office. Mary moved to the bedroom. Fred grabbed the milk there. Mary went back to the office. Jeff went back to the kitchen. Fred went to the hallway. Jeff went to the garden. Jeff went back to the bathroom. Fred dropped the milk. Bill went to the office. Jeff moved to the office. Bill went to the kitchen. Fred grabbed the milk there. Fred left the milk. Bill moved to the bedroom. Fred picked up the milk there. Bill went to the hallway. Fred gave the milk to Bill. Jeff went to the hallway. Mary went to the bathroom. Fred travelled to the kitchen. Jeff journeyed to the bathroom. Mary grabbed the apple there. Mary went to the hallway. Mary discarded the apple. Bill passed the milk to Mary. Mary handed the milk to Bill. Bill gave the milk to Mary.\nB: Mary did Bill gave the milk to." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailed." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\", \"D\", \"E\", \"F\", \"G\" or \"H\". Washing one's hands, a form of hygiene, is an effective way to prevent the spread of infectious disease. Techniques like hand washing, wearing gowns, and wearing face masks can help prevent infections from being passed from one person to another. Aseptic technique was introduced in medicine and surgery in the late 19th century and greatly reduced the incidence of infections caused by surgery. Frequent hand washing remains the most important defense against the spread of unwanted organisms. There are other forms of prevention such as avoiding the use of illicit drugs, using a condom, wearing gloves, and having a healthy lifestyle with a balanced diet and regular exercise. Cooking foods well and avoiding foods that have been left outside for a long time is also important. Antimicrobial substances used to prevent transmission of infections include: * antiseptics, which are applied to living tissue/skin * disinfectants, which destroy microorganisms found on non-living objects. * antibiotics, called prophylactic when given as prevention rather as treatment of infection. However, long term use of antibiotics leads to resistance of bacteria. While humans do not become immune to antibiotics, the bacteria does. Thus, avoiding using antibiotics longer than necessary helps preventing bacteria from forming mutations that aide in antibiotic resistance. One of the ways to prevent or slow down the transmission of infectious diseases is to recognize the different characteristics of various diseases. Some critical disease characteristics that should be evaluated include virulence, distance traveled by victims, and level of contagiousness. The human strains of Ebola virus, for example, incapacitate their victims extremely quickly and kill them soon after. As a result, the victims of this disease do not have the opportunity to travel very far from the initial infection zone. Also, this virus must spread through skin lesions or permeable membranes such as the eye. Thus, the initial stage of Ebola is not very contagious since its victims experience only internal hemorrhaging. As a result of the above features, the spread of Ebola is very rapid and usually stays within a relatively confined geographical area. In contrast, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) kills its victims very slowly by attacking their immune system. As a result, many of its victims transmit the virus to other individuals before even realizing that they are carrying the disease. Also, the relatively low virulence allows its victims to travel long distances, increasing the likelihood of an epidemic. Another effective way to decrease the transmission rate of infectious diseases is to recognize the effects of small-world networks. In epidemics, there are often extensive interactions within hubs or groups of infected individuals and other interactions within discrete hubs of susceptible individuals. Despite the low interaction between discrete hubs, the disease can jump and spread in a susceptible hub via a single or few interactions with an infected hub. Thus, infection rates in small-world networks can be reduced somewhat if interactions between individuals within infected hubs are eliminated (Figure 1). However, infection rates can be drastically reduced if the main focus is on the prevention of transmission jumps between hubs. The use of needle exchange programs in areas with a high density of drug users with HIV is an example of the successful implementation of this treatment method. Another example is the use of ring culling or vaccination of potentially susceptible livestock in adjacent farms to prevent the spread of the foot-and-mouth virus in 2001. A general method to prevent transmission of vector-borne pathogens is pest control. In cases where infection is merely suspected, individuals may be quarantined until the incubation period has passed and the disease manifests itself or the person remains healthy. Groups may undergo quarantine, or in the case of communities, a cordon sanitaire may be imposed to prevent infection from spreading beyond the community, or in the case of protective sequestration, into a community. Public health authorities may implement other forms of social distancing, such as school closings, to control an epidemic. Immunity Mary Mallon (a.k.a. Typhoid Mary) was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid fever. Over the course of her career as a cook, she infected 53 people, three of whom died. Infection with most pathogens does not result in death of the host and the offending organism is ultimately cleared after the symptoms of the disease have waned. This process requires immune mechanisms to kill or inactivate the inoculum of the pathogen. Specific acquired immunity against infectious diseases may be mediated by antibodies and/or T lymphocytes. Immunity mediated by these two factors may be manifested by: * a direct effect upon a pathogen, such as antibody-initiated complement-dependent bacteriolysis, opsonoization, phagocytosis and killing, as occurs for some bacteria, * neutralization of viruses so that these organisms cannot enter cells, * or by T lymphocytes, which will kill a cell parasitized by a microorganism. The immune system response to a microorganism often causes symptoms such as a high fever and inflammation, and has the potential to be more devastating than direct damage caused by a microbe. Resistance to infection (immunity) may be acquired following a disease, by asymptomatic carriage of the pathogen, by harboring an organism with a similar structure (crossreacting), or by vaccination. Knowledge of the protective antigens and specific acquired host immune factors is more complete for primary pathogens than for opportunistic pathogens. There is also the phenomenon of herd immunity which offers a measure of protection to those otherwise vulnerable people when a large enough proportion of the population has acquired immunity from certain infections. Immune resistance to an infectious disease requires a critical level of either antigen-specific antibodies and/or T cells when the host encounters the pathogen. Some individuals develop natural serum antibodies to the surface polysaccharides of some agents although they have had little or no contact with the agent, these natural antibodies confer specific protection to adults and are passively transmitted to newborns. Host genetic factors The organism that is the target of an infecting action of a specific infectious agent is called the host. The host harbouring an agent that is in a mature or sexually active stage phase is called the definitive host. The intermediate host comes in contact during the larvae stage. A host can be anything living and can attain to asexual and sexual reproduction. The clearance of the pathogens, either treatment-induced or spontaneous, it can be influenced by the genetic variants carried by the individual patients. For instance, for genotype 1 hepatitis C treated with Pegylated interferon-alpha-2a or Pegylated interferon-alpha-2b (brand names Pegasys or PEG-Intron) combined with ribavirin, it has been shown that genetic polymorphisms near the human IL28B gene, encoding interferon lambda 3, are associated with significant differences in the treatment-induced clearance of the virus. This finding, originally reported in Nature, showed that genotype 1 hepatitis C patients carrying certain genetic variant alleles near the IL28B gene are more possibly to achieve sustained virological response after the treatment than others. Later report from Nature demonstrated that the same genetic variants are also associated with the natural clearance of the genotype 1 hepatitis C virus.\n\nA: symptom of Trichinosis\nB: medical cause of Taeniasis\nC: field of Chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis\nD: field of Botulism\nE: medical diagnosis of Trichomoniasis\nF: symptom of Taeniasis\nG: field of Leprosy\nH: field of Trichomoniasis" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "H." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\" or \"C\". Which is the best evidence for the theory of continental drift?\n\nA: the appearance of volcanoes at the boundaries where plates collide\nB: fossils of the same species found on widely separated continents\nC: earthquakes at boundaries where one plate slides past another" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "B." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not-entailment\".\nA: Compensation of competence refers to the mutual substitution and compensation of different competences of the same individual or among members of the organization, so as to maintain or maintain the normal progress of activities. Among them, radiation compensation refers to the phenomenon that the superior ability effectively strengthens the mutual connection between various abilities or drives the improvement of other abilities at the same time. Amplified compensation refers to the high development of superior capabilities, which effectively compensates for some weak capabilities.\nB: Radiation compensation is applied to the offensive strength of Ding Guo's table tennis players." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not-entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"False\" or \"True\".\nA: Eric , a young boy , is excited about his birthday after reading a book and believes that a train will come for him , despite his sister Jill's disbelief . A few hours later , the train station's control tower wakes up and in the roundhouse , Tillie , a young little blue switcher engine , along with her best bird friend , Chip , wakes up four other trains : Georgia , a kind all-purpose engine , Farnsworth , a stuck-up passenger engine , Jebediah , a worn-out old engine , and Pete , a gruff , burly freight engine . After the tower assigns Farnsworth and Pete their jobs , Tillie tries to help with the milk train assigned to Jebediah , but the tower insists that she is too small for the job . Georgia is assigned to pull the birthday train . A clown named Rollo leads the toys into the train , including Stretch , a basketball player ; Missy , a ballerina ; a Handy Pandy , a panda ; Perky , an elephant ; and Grumpella , a stuffed bird . During her journey , Georgia breaks down and is taken back to the roundhouse by Doc . Left behind , Rollo eventually takes Doc's advice of flagging down one of the other engines returning from their daily runs over the mountain . Farnsworth and Pete turn down their offers to pull the train . Meanwhile , Tillie asks the tower to rescue the stranded train , but he insists that Tillie will never do the job . Jebediah turns down his offer to pull the train because of his age , and returns to the roundhouse . Chip and Tillie sneak past the sleeping tower and pulls the birthday train up a mountain . How many times is Tillie told that she can't pull a train?\nB: 1" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "False." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not-entailment\".\nA: The moon is the only natural satellite on the earth and the only extraterrestrial planet that human beings can reach at present. In addition to man-made satellites, using this natural satellite to carry out remote sensing observation of the earth has many advantages and irreplaceable. The surface area of the moon is much larger than any man-made satellite, so the remote sensor is deployed on the moon without considering the load, size, weight, etc. Many different types of remote sensors can be placed at the same time to form the ability of active, passive and full band synchronous observation. It will have an in-depth understanding of observing large-scale geoscience phenomena-global environmental change, land sea air interaction, plate tectonics and solid tide, three pole comparative research, and may observe previously unknown scientific phenomena.\nB: The most accurate summary of the above words is that the moon opens up a new direction of Earth Observation Science and technology." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "not-entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Leo notices a large amount of stored glucose in his cell. Ray notices zero stored glucose in his cell. Whose cell likely underwent less photosynthesis?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Ray." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Q: This SVG path element <path d=\"M 57.33,25.85 A 18.81,18.81 351.25 1,0 20.15,31.57 A 18.81,18.81 351.25 1,0 57.33,25.85\"/> draws a \n choice: line\n choice: circle\n choice: sector\n choice: triangle\n choice: heptagon\n choice: ellipse\n choice: rectangle\n choice: kite\n choice: pentagon\n choice: hexagon\n choice: octagon\nA:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "ellipse." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not_related\" or \"related\".\nA: Cary Elwes was born in Russia, lives in Russia, and has exclusively Russian heritage.\nB: Ivan Simon Cary Elwes -LRB- -LSB- ˈɛlwɪs -RSB- born 26 October 1962 -RRB- , known professionally as Cary Elwes , is an English actor and writer .. He is best known for his roles in films such as The Princess Bride , Glory , Robin Hood : Men in Tights , Days of Thunder , Bram Stoker 's Dracula , Hot Shots !. The Princess Bride. The Princess Bride ( film ). Glory. Glory ( 1989 film ). Days of Thunder. Days of Thunder. , Twister , The Jungle Book , Liar , Liar , and Saw .. Twister. Twister ( 1996 film ). The Jungle Book. The Jungle Book ( 1994 film ). Saw. Saw ( 2004 film ). He has also had recurring roles in series such as The X-Files and Psych , and currently stars in the Crackle series The Art of More .. The X-Files. The X-Files. Psych. Psych. Crackle. Crackle ( company ). The Art of More. The Art of More" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "related." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"neutral\", \"contrasting\", \"entailment\" or \"reasoning\".\nA: Here, we aim to bridge this gap.\nB: In section 3, we discussed that matching some of the input claims with the corresponding verified claims can be a non-trivial task, and we gave examples of easy and hard cases." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "neutral." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" or \"D\". The Food Network got to know Lieberman _ .\nGrowing up in Philadelphia, Lieberman started cooking with his stay-at-home dad when he was seven. His food-loving family had two kitchens, and he quickly learned what was the best way to bake his cakes. Lieberman improved his kitchen skills during a year abroad beforo college, learning from a cook in Italy and study local specialties in Gerrnany, Spain and France. At Yale,he was known for throwing dinner parties, single-handedly frying and baking while mixing drinks for dozens offriends. Just for fun, he and some friends decided to tape a show named Campus Cuisine about his cooking. Lieberman was a real college student showing his classmate how to do things like making drinks out of dining-hall fruit. That helped the show become very popular among the students. They would stop Lieberman after classes to ask for his advice on cooking. Tapes of the show were passed around,with which his name went beyond the school and finally to the Food Network.\nFood Network producer Flay hopes the young cook will find a place on the\nnetwork television. He says Lieberman's charisma is key.\"Food T-V isn't about\nfood anymore.\" says Flay, \" It's about your personality and finding a way to keep\npeople's eyeballs on your show.\"\nBut Lieberman isn't putting all his eggs in one basket. After taping the first season of the new show, Lieberman was back in his own small kitchen preparing\nsandwiches. An airline company was looking for someone to come up with a tasteful,\ninexpensive and easy-to-make menu to serve on its flight. Lieberman got the job.\n\nA: through his taped show\nB: on a television program\nC: from his teacher\nD: at one of his parties" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Adequate\", \"Effective\" or \"Ineffective\".\nDr. Huang relies on his work for pschologist such as Dr. Paul Eckman creator of FACS Eckman has classiflied 6 basic emotions such as happpnies,surpise,anger,disgust,fear, and sadness. Anf then associted with characteristic's movemnet's for ecample your frontails pars latrerails muscle's raises your eyebrows when you're surpirsed your'r orbiuclas oris tight your lips up show anger.\n\n\"The Facial expression for each are univesal\"' obsevers Dr. Huang \"even ttrough indivduals ofeten show carry's degree of expression like not smiling as brodly well using a video, in a real life face or in a paiting by weighinh the diffent units the software can even identfy mixed emotions as in Da vincis master pice each expression is compared to a neutral face. " }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Ineffective." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, chose the best option from \"A\", \"B\", \"C\" or \"D\". A 27-year-old college student presents to his physician for constant fatigue. The patient states that for the past several weeks he has felt oddly fatigued and has struggled to complete his work. He is a foreign exchange student and is concerned he will fail out of his academic program. He has experienced some occasional nausea and vomiting which has caused him to lose weight. The patient is a first year college student, drinks alcohol regularly, smokes marijuana, and has unprotected sex with multiple partners. His temperature is 99.5°F (37.5°C), blood pressure is 127/68 mmHg, pulse is 90/min, respirations are 17/min, and oxygen saturation is 98% on room air. Laboratory values are ordered as seen below.\n\nSerum:\nNa+: 139 mEq/L\nCl-: 100 mEq/L\nK+: 4.3 mEq/L\nHCO3-: 25 mEq/L\nBUN: 20 mg/dL\nGlucose: 99 mg/dL\nCreatinine: 1.1 mg/dL\nCa2+: 10.2 mg/dL\nTotal bilirubin: 2.0 mg/dL\nAST: 85 U/L\nALT: 92 U/L\n\nUrine\nColor: Amber/brown\nMarijuana: Positive\nAmphetamines: Positive\nCocaine: Positive\n\nThe patient refuses an examination of his genitals. Which of the following is the best diagnostic test?\n\nA: Viral surface antibody\nB: CAGE questions\nC: Viral core antibody\nD: Uretheral swab and culture" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "C." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not_related\" or \"related\".\nA: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe published the first part of Faust in 1808.\nB: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe -LRB- -LSB- ˈgɜːrtə -RSB- -LSB- ˈjoːhan ˈvɔlfɡaŋ fɔn ˈɡøːtə -RSB- ; 28 August 1749 -- 22 March 1832 -RRB- was a German writer and statesman .. statesman. politician. August. August Schlegel. His works include epic and lyric poetry ; prose and verse dramas ; memoirs ; an autobiography ; literary and aesthetic criticism ; treatises on botany , anatomy , and colour ; and four novels .. epic. epic poetry. lyric poetry. lyric poetry. prose. prose. verse. verse ( poetry ). literary. literary criticism. aesthetic criticism. Aesthetics. botany. botany. anatomy. anatomy. In addition , numerous literary and scientific fragments , more than 10,000 letters , and nearly 3,000 drawings by him exist .. literary. literary criticism. A literary celebrity by the age of 25 , Goethe was ennobled by the Duke of Saxe-Weimar , Carl August in 1782 after taking up residence there in November 1775 following the success of his first novel , The Sorrows of Young Werther .. Weimar. Weimar. The Sorrows of Young Werther. The Sorrows of Young Werther. literary. literary criticism. ennobled. ennobled. Saxe-Weimar. Saxe-Weimar. Carl August. Carl August, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. August. August Schlegel. He was an early participant in the Sturm und Drang literary movement .. Sturm und Drang. Sturm und Drang. literary. literary criticism. During his first ten years in Weimar , Goethe was a member of the Duke 's privy council , sat on the war and highway commissions , oversaw the reopening of silver mines in nearby Ilmenau , and implemented a series of administrative reforms at the University of Jena .. Weimar. Weimar. privy council. privy council. Ilmenau. Ilmenau. University of Jena. University of Jena. He also contributed to the planning of Weimar 's botanical park and the rebuilding of its Ducal Palace , which in 1998 were together designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site .. Weimar. Weimar. Ducal Palace. Schloss Weimar. were together designated. Classical Weimar ( World Heritage Site ). UNESCO World Heritage Site. UNESCO World Heritage Site. His first major scientific work , the Metamorphosis of Plants , was published after he returned from a 1788 tour of Italy .. Metamorphosis of Plants. Metamorphosis of Plants. In 1791 , he was made managing director of the theatre at Weimar , and in 1794 he began a friendship with the dramatist , historian , and philosopher Friedrich Schiller , whose plays he premiered until Schiller 's death in 1805 .. Weimar. Weimar. dramatist. playwright. Friedrich Schiller. Friedrich Schiller. During this period , Goethe published his second novel , Wilhelm Meister 's Apprenticeship , the verse epic Hermann and Dorothea , and , in 1808 , the first part of his most celebrated drama , Faust .. Faust. Goethe's Faust. epic. epic poetry. verse. verse ( poetry ). Hermann and Dorothea. Hermann and Dorothea. His conversations and various common undertakings throughout the 1790s with Schiller , Johann Gottlieb Fichte , Johann Gottfried Herder , Alexander von Humboldt , Wilhelm von Humboldt , and August and Friedrich Schlegel have , in later years , been collectively termed Weimar Classicism .. Weimar. Weimar. Weimar Classicism. Weimar Classicism. Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Johann Gottfried Herder. Johann Gottfried Herder. Alexander von Humboldt. Alexander von Humboldt. Wilhelm von Humboldt. Wilhelm von Humboldt. August. August Schlegel. Friedrich Schlegel. Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel. Arthur Schopenhauer cited Wilhelm Meister 's Apprenticeship as one of the four greatest novels ever written , along with Tristram Shandy , La Nouvelle Heloise , and Don Quixote , and Ralph Waldo Emerson selected Goethe as one of six `` representative men '' in his work of the same name , along with Plato , Emanuel Swedenborg , Michel de Montaigne , Napoleon , and William Shakespeare .. Arthur Schopenhauer. Arthur Schopenhauer. Tristram Shandy. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. La Nouvelle Heloise. Julie, or the New Heloise. Don Quixote. Don Quixote. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ralph Waldo Emerson. work of the same name. Representative Men. Plato. Plato. Emanuel Swedenborg. Emanuel Swedenborg. Michel de Montaigne. Michel de Montaigne. Napoleon. Napoleon. William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare. Goethe 's comments and observations form the basis of several biographical works , most notably Johann Peter Eckermann 's Conversations with Goethe .. Johann Peter Eckermann. Johann Peter Eckermann. Conversations with Goethe. Conversations with Goethe" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "related." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Student\", \"Arts\", \"HumanResources\" or \"Publishing\".\nOld people - what the fuck do they do for anybody? Jack shit. Old people should be eaten.Get rid of anybody involved with the AARP while you're at it. Priests - how do these people lie through clenched teeth day after day? These pricks are only in it for the bling bling. And the ass. Sweet, tender, 8-year-old ass. That kid in math class who \"doesn't get it\" - am I the only one who has one of these fuckasses every year? \"I don't get it!\" \"I'm stupid!\" Here's an idea - end yourself!!! Nobody gives a shit, dick head. Fat kids who laugh a lot - yeah, I stole that from George Carlin, how about you go fuck yourself. If you're of hefty stature, please control your humor response. Skaters - fuckers. I've been asked if I skate so many times, I now answer with a simple, \"Fuck you.\" Really. People who don't speak english - get the hell out of my country. I hate the US but it still pisses me off for some reason I won't even begin to discuss. People who chew popcorn too fucking loud at movie theaters - I hate popcorn, god dammit. I get this uncontrollable urge to pop a cap in their arses. RIAA - these fucks are constantly probing my computer and it pisses me off. More to come. Many more to fucking come." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Student." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "If the Sun were closer to the Earth than the Moon, which body's gravity would have more influence on Earth?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Sun." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"ar\", \"it\", \"tr\" or \"zh\".\nبالنسبة لاقتصاد مع إعادة الاستثمار ، ماذا يحدث إذا استطعنا الاستفادة من ميزاتنا التجارية وإعادة استثمار أي فائض حتى نتمكن من إنشاء المزيد من التفاح والكمثرى مما كان علينا أن نبدأ به؟" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "ar." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"entailment\" or \"not-entailment\".\nA: A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Surprisingly, perhaps, <b> the strategy to maximize overall profit from a new product is to charge less than the greatest price the market will bear </b>. Many companies charge the maximum possible price for such a product, because they want to make as much profit as they can and technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed. The drawback is that <b> large profits on the new product give competitors a strong incentive to quickly match the new product' s capabilities </b>.\nB: The first boldface portion in the argument above is the position the argument advocates, and the second presents grounds for rejecting an alternative position." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "entailment." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "What is the answer to the question, assuming the context is true.\n\n\nQuestion: who won the women 's singles gold medal in tennis at the rio olympics?\nContext: Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk won Puerto Rico 's first ever Olympic gold medal , defeating Angelique Kerber in the final , 6 -- 4 , 4 -- 6 , 6 -- 1 .\n choice: Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk\n choice: Monica Puig\nAnswer:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Monica Puig." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Amazon prime encourages Netflix users to switch since they overcharge their users now. : they :" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Netflix." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "My mom always had training at the house, but not today because the _ was unavailable." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "house." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"non-offensive\" or \"offensive\".\n#osho #quotes via @user Listen to your being. It is continuously giving you hints. It is a still, small voice. It does not shout at you, that is true. And if you are a little silent you will start feeling your way. Be the person you are. Never try…" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "non-offensive." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"ru\", \"en\", \"pl\" or \"th\".\nВам лучше немного повернуть маленький винт, потому что вы можете без труда повредить легкие человека." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "ru." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label A→B with either \"not_equivalent\" or \"equivalent\".\nA: \" PNC regrets its involvement \" in the deals , Chairman and Chief Executive Officer James Rohr said in a statement .\nB: James Rohr , chairman and chief executive officer , said PNC regretted the incident ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "equivalent." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With no explanation, label the following with either \"Organizations\", \"Base Salary\", \"Brokers\" or \"Releases\".\nNovo Integrated he execution Organization. Novo Integrated Sciences, Inc. is a corporation duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the Laws of the State of Nevada and has the corporate power and is duly authorized under all applicable Laws, regulations, ordinances, and orders of public authorities to carry on its business in all material respects as it is now being conducted. Novo Healthnet Limited is a limited corporation duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the Laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada and has the corporate power and is duly authorized under all applicable Laws, regulations, ordinances, and orders of public authorities to carry on its business in all material respects as it is now being conducted. NHL has delivered to complete and correct copies of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Buyers as in effect on the Effective Date (the “Buyer’s Organizational Documents”)." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Organizations." } ]