Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Follow

Neuronovo 9

With the premise 'oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows', is 'I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.' simply an unrelated statement?

oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows###I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.

From the starting point of 'oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows', does 'I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.' follow as a logical conclusion?

oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows###I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.

Given 'oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows', is 'I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.' its antithesis?

oh no well i don't find a lot of time to watch TV and a lot of the time i find it during the day when i'm rocking my little girl to sleep so i watch a lot of reruns old shows###I enjoy watching the old reruns because I find them calming.

Considering 'so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back', does 'You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.' maintain an independent stance?

so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back###You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.

Does accepting 'so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back' as true logically compel one to accept 'You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.'

so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back###You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.

Given 'so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back', is 'You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.' its antithesis?

so that will definitely help in taxes and what you will get back###You'll probably get a lot bigger refund.

If 'The smart Annie was not in evidence.' is true, does it logically mean that 'The clever Annie was not in proof.' also is?

The smart Annie was not in evidence.###The clever Annie was not in proof.

In the context of 'The smart Annie was not in evidence.', does 'The clever Annie was not in proof.' stand alone without direct association?

The smart Annie was not in evidence.###The clever Annie was not in proof.

Does the hypothesis 'The smart Annie was not in evidence.' logically conflict with the premise 'The clever Annie was not in proof.'

The smart Annie was not in evidence.###The clever Annie was not in proof.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? ' and 'THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.'

Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? ###THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? Hypothesis: THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.

Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? ###THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? ' and 'THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.'

Yes, Mistuh Reese, suh? ###THe slave spoke to Mr Reece.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself. Hypothesis: Horus has a shrine.

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus has a shrine.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.' and 'Horus has a shrine.', indicating neutrality?

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus has a shrine.

Given 'At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.', is 'Horus has a shrine.' its antithesis?

At the heart of the sanctuary, a small granite shrine once held the sacred barque of Horus himself.###Horus has a shrine.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'do you like um any rock and roll at all' and 'So you don't like rock and roll?'

do you like um any rock and roll at all###So you don't like rock and roll?

Given 'do you like um any rock and roll at all', would 'So you don't like rock and roll?' be a logical outcome?

do you like um any rock and roll at all###So you don't like rock and roll?

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'do you like um any rock and roll at all' and 'So you don't like rock and roll?', indicating neutrality?

do you like um any rock and roll at all###So you don't like rock and roll?

Does 'Dining room, grill, pub.' serve to directly refute the premise presented in 'It has a dining room but no grill.'

Dining room, grill, pub.###It has a dining room but no grill.

With 'Dining room, grill, pub.', is it rational to deduce 'It has a dining room but no grill.'

Dining room, grill, pub.###It has a dining room but no grill.

Given 'Dining room, grill, pub.', can 'It has a dining room but no grill.' be seen as maintaining a distinct, neutral position?

Dining room, grill, pub.###It has a dining room but no grill.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. Hypothesis: I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.

What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. ###I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.

From 'What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. ', can we infer that 'I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.' follows logically?

What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. ###I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.

Can 'What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. ' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.'

What have you, my friend, he cried, "that you remain there like, how do you say it?, ah, yes, the stuck pig?" I explained that I was afraid of obliterating any foot-marks. ###I didn't say anything when he asked me that question.

From 'But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world.', can we conclude that 'The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world.###The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.

If we start with 'But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world.', does it make sense to conclude with 'The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.'

But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world.###The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis contradict the premise? Premise: But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world. Hypothesis: The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.

But such a show would have meant the museum taking a hard look at its own, often controversial part in the art world.###The museum didn't want to look too closely into its part in the art world.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name. Hypothesis: Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.

But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name.###Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.

Given 'But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name.', would 'Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.' be a logical outcome?

But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name.###Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name. Hypothesis: Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.

But you will find fishermen, many of whom are direct descendants of some 600 Genoese mercenaries King Charles III rescued from captivity on Tunisia's Tabarka Island, hence the name.###Tabarka Island is part of Turkey.

Starting from 'Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish.', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'He call Francisco in Spanish.'

Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish.###He call Francisco in Spanish.

Does 'Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish.' neither support nor refute 'He call Francisco in Spanish.', instead existing independently?

Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish.###He call Francisco in Spanish.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish. Hypothesis: He call Francisco in Spanish.

Unbar, Francisco! he called in Spanish.###He call Francisco in Spanish.

Taking 'The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.' as a given, does it logically imply 'Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.'

The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.###Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.

Can 'The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.'

The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.###Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.' and 'Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.'

The Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences, absent an express congressional intent that such burdens be imposed.###Unless congress expresses an intent that such burdens be imposed, the Commission is unwilling to recommend an interpretation of the statute that produces such consequences.

Does 'Who could there be?"' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'The speaker doesn't know who it is.'

Who could there be?"###The speaker doesn't know who it is.

Based on the premise 'Who could there be?"', does it logically lead to the hypothesis 'The speaker doesn't know who it is.'

Who could there be?"###The speaker doesn't know who it is.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: Who could there be?" Hypothesis: The speaker doesn't know who it is.

Who could there be?"###The speaker doesn't know who it is.

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley.' and 'My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.'

My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley.###My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley. Hypothesis: My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.

My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley.###My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley. Hypothesis: My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.

My wife and daughter are the ones doing Riley.###My grandmother and grandmother's lesbian lover are doing Riley.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages. Hypothesis: Backwater rides are popular in this area.

Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages.###Backwater rides are popular in this area.

Taking 'Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages.' as a given, does it logically imply 'Backwater rides are popular in this area. '

Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages.###Backwater rides are popular in this area.

In response to 'Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages.', does 'Backwater rides are popular in this area. ' serve as a counterstatement?

Take a backwaters trip through the lagoons and around the island villages.###Backwater rides are popular in this area.

Is there a lack of direct logical connection between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: Alcohol use and trauma. Hypothesis: Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.

Alcohol use and trauma.###Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: Alcohol use and trauma. Hypothesis: Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.

Alcohol use and trauma.###Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.

Is 'Alcohol use and trauma.' a clear rebuttal of the premise 'Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.'

Alcohol use and trauma.###Trauma is the leading cause of alcohol abuse.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo. Hypothesis: Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.

In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo.###Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.

Is 'In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo.' a logical precursor to the hypothesis 'Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.'

In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo.###Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo. Hypothesis: Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.

In a culture where Xena and Hercules have hit TV shows, it's a lot more fun imagining that you are a valiant warrior doing business-as-battle than it is to admit that you're a pudgy functionary whose most daring deed is to draft a boldly worded memo.###Xena and Hercules both have hit shows on CBS.

In the context of 'Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.', does 'Laibson has selfish people that follow him.' serve as a direct counterargument?

Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.###Laibson has selfish people that follow him.

Does the foundation laid by 'Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.' logically support 'Laibson has selfish people that follow him.'

Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.###Laibson has selfish people that follow him.

Given 'Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.', can 'Laibson has selfish people that follow him.' be seen as maintaining a distinct, neutral position?

Laibson's imperfect altruists face a far subtler problem--they're not just weighing costs and benefits, they're engaged in games of strategy against their future selves.###Laibson has selfish people that follow him.

Given ''But if they catch me...'', does 'But if they kill me' present an opposing view?

'But if they catch me...'###But if they kill me

With the premise ''But if they catch me...'', is 'But if they kill me' a logical derivative?

'But if they catch me...'###But if they kill me

Given the statement ''But if they catch me...'', is 'But if they kill me' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

'But if they catch me...'###But if they kill me

Does 'The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.' logically negate the premise 'She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.'

The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.###She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.

If we start with 'The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.', does it make sense to conclude with 'She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.'

The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.###She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.

Does the connection between 'The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.' and 'She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.' lack any definitive logical relationship?

The win brought tears to her eyes, of course, and prompted a phone call to Mom in India.###She called her father after she lost, smiling as she did it.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.' and 'Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition. '

The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.###Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Hypothesis: Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition.

The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.###Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition.

Does 'The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.' stand independently of the premise 'Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition. ', neither following nor contradicting it?

The Muslim campaign for Partition was led by London-trained Bombay lawyer, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.###Muhammad Ali Jinnah went to London to campaign for Partition.

Does the hypothesis 'it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is' logically conflict with the premise 'It's much more expensive that way.'

it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is###It's much more expensive that way.

Does the narrative of 'it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is' logically evolve into 'It's much more expensive that way.'

it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is###It's much more expensive that way.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is Hypothesis: It's much more expensive that way.

it's um it's it's amazingly less expensive than it is###It's much more expensive that way.

From 'Automobile includes small trucks.', can we conclude that 'Small trucks are not great automobiles.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

Automobile includes small trucks.###Small trucks are not great automobiles.

Given the context of 'Automobile includes small trucks.', does 'Small trucks are not great automobiles.' emerge logically?

Automobile includes small trucks.###Small trucks are not great automobiles.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: Automobile includes small trucks. Hypothesis: Small trucks are not great automobiles.

Automobile includes small trucks.###Small trucks are not great automobiles.

Considering 'You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.', does 'She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.' maintain an independent stance?

You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.###She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.

Is 'You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.'

You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.###She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.

Does 'You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.' challenge or dispute the premise 'She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.'

You're quite safe." Her breath came more normally, and the colour was returning to her cheeks.###She started recovering from the mild shock she had gone through.

If we start with 'probably so probably so um-hum', does it make sense to conclude with 'probably yes so uh-huh'

probably so probably so um-hum###probably yes so uh-huh

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: probably so probably so um-hum Hypothesis: probably yes so uh-huh

probably so probably so um-hum###probably yes so uh-huh

Given 'probably so probably so um-hum', does 'probably yes so uh-huh' present an opposing view?

probably so probably so um-hum###probably yes so uh-huh

Can 'After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.'

After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.###Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.

If 'After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.' is true, does it logically mean that 'Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.' also is?

After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.###Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.

Does 'After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.' logically negate the premise 'Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.'

After its early failure, Hubble now provides vital clues to the universe.###Hubble failed earlier becuase they weren't making enough discoveries.

Is 'well they all come back from from the bottom' a logical precursor to the hypothesis 'They bounce back from the bottom.'

well they all come back from from the bottom###They bounce back from the bottom.

Given 'well they all come back from from the bottom', does 'They bounce back from the bottom.' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

well they all come back from from the bottom###They bounce back from the bottom.

In response to 'well they all come back from from the bottom', does 'They bounce back from the bottom.' serve as a counterstatement?

well they all come back from from the bottom###They bounce back from the bottom.

Does 'A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186.' stand independently of the premise 'A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.', neither following nor contradicting it?

A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186.###A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.

Does the premise 'A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186.' naturally result in the hypothesis 'A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.'

A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186.###A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186. Hypothesis: A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.

A library with the maximum allowable e-rate subsidy of 90 percent would still find itself paying a monthly Internet bill of $186.###A library has a maximum subsidy of 90% for utilities.

In response to 'and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers', does 'Dallas was always in the majors.' serve as a counterstatement?

and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers###Dallas was always in the majors.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers Hypothesis: Dallas was always in the majors.

and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers###Dallas was always in the majors.

Given 'and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers', does 'Dallas was always in the majors.' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

and i was never in a minor league city until i came Dallas we were a minor league city when i came here in fifty nine and i immediately bought season tickets uh to the class triple A uh uh Dallas Rangers###Dallas was always in the majors.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: Just a hunch. Hypothesis: It is just a guess

Just a hunch.###It is just a guess

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: Just a hunch. Hypothesis: It is just a guess

Just a hunch.###It is just a guess

Does 'Just a hunch.' stand in direct opposition to the premise 'It is just a guess'

Just a hunch.###It is just a guess

Does the foundation laid by 'The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.' logically support 'The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.'

The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.###The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.' and 'The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.', indicating neutrality?

The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.###The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.

Is 'The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.' a clear rebuttal of the premise 'The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.'

The SPAN A Guide to Legal Services Planning.###The SPAN A guide is a guide used for legal service planning.

Is 'yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice' a fitting logical lead-up to 'They made a good rendition.'

yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice###They made a good rendition.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis maintaining a neutral stance? Premise: yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice Hypothesis: They made a good rendition.

yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice###They made a good rendition.

Does 'yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice' logically negate the premise 'They made a good rendition.'

yeah i think they did a pretty good job but they didn't follow it exactly but they did give it you know do it justice###They made a good rendition.

If 'The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.' is true, does it logically mean that 'The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.' also is?

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.###The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.' and 'The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.', lacking direct logical ties?

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.###The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.

Does the hypothesis 'The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.' logically conflict with the premise 'The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.'

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal a policy worthy of imitation.###The citizens of the U.S. are supposed to be proud of themselves.

From the starting point of 'She always says the right thing, does the right thing, wears the right clothes.', does 'She does, says, and wears everything perfectly, consistently. ' follow as a logical conclusion?

She always says the right thing, does the right thing, wears the right clothes.###She does, says, and wears everything perfectly, consistently.