Datasets:

Neuronovo

/

neuronovo-utc-data-glue-mnli

like 0

Follow

Neuronovo 9

Is there a fundamental disagreement between 'By one estimate, Russia's economic output would more than double if the Russians simply sold off their natural resources instead of trying to make something out of them.' and 'It is possible that Putin wants to develop the financial independence and work skills of Russians and the loss of money in less profit to merely selling off materials is worth the manufacturing expertise gained by his people as they create goods within their own country. '

By one estimate, Russia's economic output would more than double if the Russians simply sold off their natural resources instead of trying to make something out of them.###It is possible that Putin wants to develop the financial independence and work skills of Russians and the loss of money in less profit to merely selling off materials is worth the manufacturing expertise gained by his people as they create goods within their own country.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California. Hypothesis: Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?

Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California.###Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?

In the context of 'Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California.', does 'Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?' stand alone without direct association?

Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California.###Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?

Given the premise, is the hypothesis presenting a conflicting viewpoint? Premise: Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California. Hypothesis: Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?

Perhaps he should clear out even farther and head for California.###Maybe he should head for California to clear out even farther?

In the context of 'yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean', does 'He has sailed a little.' stand alone without direct association?

yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean###He has sailed a little.

Instruction: Does the hypothesis follow logically from the premise? Premise: yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean Hypothesis: He has sailed a little.

yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean###He has sailed a little.

Is there an overt contradiction between 'yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean' and 'He has sailed a little.'

yeah well uh we're not uh really sailors but i want some summer soon to um hire a sailboat with a captain since we're not you know versed in that and uh go to the Caribbean###He has sailed a little.

In response to 'For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. ', does 'He stayed put and sat on the floor.' serve as a counterstatement?

For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. ###He stayed put and sat on the floor.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. Hypothesis: He stayed put and sat on the floor.

For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. ###He stayed put and sat on the floor.

Evaluate if the hypothesis neither contradicts nor follows from the premise. Premise: For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. Hypothesis: He stayed put and sat on the floor.

For the moment, he sought refuge in retreat, and left the room precipitately. ###He stayed put and sat on the floor.

Given 'In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.', would 'During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.' be a logical outcome?

In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.###During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.

Does 'In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.'

In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.###During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.

Does 'In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.' provide a contradiction to the established premise 'During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.'

In June you can watch dealers haggling over heaps of white silkworm cocoons.###During the summer months dealers barter for piles of silkworm cocoons.

In response to 'The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy.', does 'Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.' serve as a counterstatement?

The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy.###Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy. Hypothesis: Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.

The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy.###Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.

Does 'The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy.' hold a position of neutrality in relation to 'Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.'

The results looked like Versace melded with Blade Runner , says Newsweek 's Steven Levy.###Steven Levy has never seen Blade Runner.

Given the context of 'uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and', does 'Acid is handled by workers. ' emerge logically?

uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and###Acid is handled by workers.

Is there a neutral relationship between 'uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and' and 'Acid is handled by workers. ', lacking direct logical ties?

uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and###Acid is handled by workers.

Is 'uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and' in direct disagreement with the statement 'Acid is handled by workers. '

uh you know if you have a large acid spill you know well gee maybe you better check this person who's handling all these acids you know i work with a wafer fab so we do a lot with chemicals and acids and###Acid is handled by workers.

With the premise 'The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.', is 'Paris opened the first department store.' a logical derivative?

The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.###Paris opened the first department store.

Does 'The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.' neither support nor refute 'Paris opened the first department store.', instead existing independently?

The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.###Paris opened the first department store.

Given 'The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.', is 'Paris opened the first department store.' its antithesis?

The bourgeoisie showed off its new prosperity with extravagant furnishings, silks, satins, and baubles, and in 1852 Paris opened its first department store, Au Bon Marche.###Paris opened the first department store.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish. Hypothesis: He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.

He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish.###He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish.' and 'He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.'

He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish.###He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.

In response to 'He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish.', does 'He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.' serve as a counterstatement?

He waited for the group on the nearby 18 th green to finish.###He was patient while hte group on the 18th hole finished.

In relation to 'i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school', does 'I have never been a college student.' express a contradictory stance?

i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school###I have never been a college student.

Is 'i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school' a logical precursor to the hypothesis 'I have never been a college student.'

i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school###I have never been a college student.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school' and 'I have never been a college student.', indicating neutrality?

i think so i don't know i just uh i'm unhappy with it but and well i'm i'm sort of semi fortunate right now i'm a graduate student so i don't make that much what i make isn't taxed very highly because i'm still in school###I have never been a college student.

Given the premise, is the hypothesis an unavoidable conclusion? Premise: He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits. Hypothesis: He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.

He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits.###He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.

Does 'He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits.' exist in a separate context from 'He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.', without logical interdependence?

He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits.###He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.

Does 'He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits.' challenge or dispute the premise 'He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.'

He thought about ways to achieve this life goal for a long time, which means until he learned the basics of text editing, which happened at his first job at a firm trading in plastic bags landfill disposal permits.###He thought about ways to achieve his life goals for a long time.

Is 'Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.'

Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.###The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.

From 'Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.', can we conclude that 'The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.###The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.

Does 'Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.' challenge or dispute the premise 'The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.'

Kofukuji's many surviving artworks and artifacts are housed in its newest building, the Museum of National Treasures, a fireproof repository built in 1958 to honor Kofukuji's immense cultural and historic importance.###The fireproof repository built in 1958 is considered to be enough to protect the artifacts.

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh Hypothesis: If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.

no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh###If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis naturally and logically follow? Premise: no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh Hypothesis: If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.

no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh###If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.

Is 'no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh' in direct disagreement with the statement 'If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.'

no not near as much as i'd like to i mean i've i tend to stay pretty busy at my job and uh###If my job wasn't so busy, I do that a lot more.

Can 'We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.' be viewed as neither a logical extension nor a contradiction of 'The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.'

We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.###The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.

Does 'We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.'

We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.###The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.

Considering 'We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.', is 'The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.' a statement that refutes it?

We have a problem concerning gift etiquette.###The problem we have with gift etiquette is people not knowing how to choose appropriate gifts.

Given 'The Inglethorps did not appear. ', does 'The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.' present an opposing view?

The Inglethorps did not appear. ###The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.

With 'The Inglethorps did not appear. ', is it rational to deduce 'The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.'

The Inglethorps did not appear. ###The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.

Considering 'The Inglethorps did not appear. ', does 'The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.' maintain an independent stance?

The Inglethorps did not appear. ###The Inglethorps were the first ones to turn up.

From 'equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.', can we conclude that 'National savings are 18 now.' is unrelated and maintains neutrality?

equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.###National savings are 18 now.

Based on the premise 'equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.', does it logically lead to the hypothesis 'National savings are 18 now.'

equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.###National savings are 18 now.

Does 'equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.' stand in direct opposition to the premise 'National savings are 18 now.'

equivalent to increasing national saving to 19.###National savings are 18 now.

Does 'There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ' offer a contrasting position to 'No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions. '

There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ###No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions.

Does the foundation laid by 'There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ' logically support 'No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions. '

There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ###No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions.

In relation to 'There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ', does 'No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions. ' represent a neutral and unrelated viewpoint?

There's a sort of bidding war going on, with law schools offering ever-increasing financial packages -- most of it loans, said Dean Glen. ###No one really cares about the new students coming to their institutions.

Does the connection between 'Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps.' and 'Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.' lack any definitive logical relationship?

Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps.###Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.

Is the premise sufficiently strong to logically lead to the hypothesis? Premise: Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps. Hypothesis: Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.

Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps.###Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.

Given 'Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps.', does 'Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.' present an opposing view?

Today, as always, the time-honored occupations of fishing and farming support Martinique's fragile existence the delicious rum also helps.###Martinique makes more money from fishing than from farming.

Given 'Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.', does 'All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.' exist in a neutral realm, neither confirming nor denying the premise?

Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.###All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.

Is 'Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.'

Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.###All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.

Does the hypothesis 'Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.' logically conflict with the premise 'All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.'

Comments regarding enforcement issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by EPA in four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents.###All the issues and questions raised by the regulated industry were addressed by the EPA.

In the context of 'The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.', does 'If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.' stand alone without direct association?

The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.###If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.

If we start with 'The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.', does it make sense to conclude with 'If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.'

The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.###If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.

Given the assertion 'The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.', does 'If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.' offer a contrary position?

The Ottoman Empire surrendered when World War I ended the following year, and, following a declaration by the League of Nations (the forerunner to the United Nations), Britain became rulers of Palestine by mandate.###If the Ottoman Empire never surrendered, Palestine wouldn't have been ruled by the British.

Analyze if the hypothesis is in clear contradiction to the premise. Premise: You're mad. Hypothesis: You are still sane.

You're mad.###You are still sane.

Is 'You're mad.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'You are still sane.'

You're mad.###You are still sane.

With the premise 'You're mad.', is 'You are still sane.' simply an unrelated statement?

You're mad.###You are still sane.

Does 'Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life' logically negate the premise 'Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.'

Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life###Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.

If we start with 'Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life', does it make sense to conclude with 'Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.'

Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life###Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.

Does 'Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life' stand independently of the premise 'Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.', neither following nor contradicting it?

Jon had only seen two people move that fast in his life###Jon knew at least 500 people with the same speed.

With the premise 'I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'', is 'Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.' simply an unrelated statement?

I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'###Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.

Taking 'I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'' as a given, does it logically imply 'Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.'

I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'###Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.

In relation to 'I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'', does 'Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.' express a contradictory stance?

I have done my best to target unpopulated areas at unpopulated times, but the guilt still weights heavy on my soul.'###Many people have died even though the areas were supposed to be unpopulated.

Instruction: Is the hypothesis unrelated or neutral to the premise? Premise: Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again. Hypothesis: Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.

Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again.###Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.

Taking 'Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again.' as a given, does it logically imply 'Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.'

Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again.###Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.

Given the assertion 'Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again.', does 'Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.' offer a contrary position?

Thurmond announced a few weeks ago that he won't run again.###Thurmond was defeated in six previous elections.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis directly oppose it? Premise: Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings. Hypothesis: Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.

Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings.###Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.

Does the foundation laid by 'Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings.' logically support 'Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.'

Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings.###Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.

Is there no direct logical correlation between 'Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings.' and 'Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.', indicating neutrality?

Auditors will need to exercise professional judgment in assessing the significance of audit results or findings.###Auditors are not responsible for the assessment of audit results.

In relation to 'Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.', does 'There was no stock market boom in the 1990s. ' express a contradictory stance?

Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.###There was no stock market boom in the 1990s.

With the premise 'Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.', is 'There was no stock market boom in the 1990s. ' a logical derivative?

Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.###There was no stock market boom in the 1990s.

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.' and 'There was no stock market boom in the 1990s. '

Although a great deal of attention has been paid to the wealth effect from the stock market boom of the 1990s, half of American households did not own stocks as of 1998, according to the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finance.###There was no stock market boom in the 1990s.

Does 'Where's Tommy? ' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'Do you know where Tommy is?'

Where's Tommy? ###Do you know where Tommy is?

Is there an absence of a logical link between 'Where's Tommy? ' and 'Do you know where Tommy is?'

Where's Tommy? ###Do you know where Tommy is?

In response to 'Where's Tommy? ', does 'Do you know where Tommy is?' serve as a counterstatement?

Where's Tommy? ###Do you know where Tommy is?

Given 'Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.', would 'Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.' be a logical outcome?

Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.###Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.

In relation to 'Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.', does 'Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.' represent a neutral and unrelated viewpoint?

Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.###Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.

Does 'Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.' serve to directly refute the premise presented in 'Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.'

Moreover, the realignment will help us to enhance our longterm capacity by improving recruitment and retention; building a succession plan; focusing on emerging issues; and leveraging technology opportunities for improvements to clients, processes, and employees.###Long term capacity will be improved by the realignment.

Does the narrative of 'The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant.' logically evolve into 'The lot had been vacant.'

The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant.###The lot had been vacant.

In relation to 'The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant.', does 'The lot had been vacant.' represent a neutral and unrelated viewpoint?

The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant.###The lot had been vacant.

Is there a direct logical conflict between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant. Hypothesis: The lot had been vacant.

The lot upon which it is being built had been vacant.###The lot had been vacant.

In response to 'that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children', does 'I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.' serve as a counterstatement?

that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children###I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.

Starting from 'that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children', does it naturally lead to the conclusion 'I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.'

that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children###I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children Hypothesis: I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.

that if i were living in Mexico and trying to raise several children and i could see across the border where the good life would be for my children###I believe Mexico is the best place to raise children.

Is 'Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith.' a fitting logical lead-up to 'His faith may be lacking.'

Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith.###His faith may be lacking.

Consider the premise. Does the hypothesis stand independently without contradicting or following it? Premise: Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith. Hypothesis: His faith may be lacking.

Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith.###His faith may be lacking.

Is 'Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith.' a clear rebuttal of the premise 'His faith may be lacking.'

Or he hasn't really thought it through, which itself would cast doubt on the depth of his faith.###His faith may be lacking.

Is there a lack of direct logical connection between the premise and the hypothesis? Premise: Network externalities are in. Hypothesis: The public is not informed how the network works.

Network externalities are in.###The public is not informed how the network works.

Analyze if the hypothesis is a logical continuation of the premise. Premise: Network externalities are in. Hypothesis: The public is not informed how the network works.

Network externalities are in.###The public is not informed how the network works.

In relation to 'Network externalities are in.', does 'The public is not informed how the network works.' express a contradictory stance?

Network externalities are in.###The public is not informed how the network works.

Considering 'We could use their assistance should it be needed.', does 'We might need help every day.' maintain an independent stance?

We could use their assistance should it be needed.###We might need help every day.

Based on the premise 'We could use their assistance should it be needed.', does it logically lead to the hypothesis 'We might need help every day.'

We could use their assistance should it be needed.###We might need help every day.

Is there a clear contradiction between 'We could use their assistance should it be needed.' and 'We might need help every day.'

We could use their assistance should it be needed.###We might need help every day.

Given 'Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.', is 'The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.' its antithesis?

Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.###The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.

Does 'Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.' logically set the stage for the hypothesis 'The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.'

Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.###The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.

Given the statement 'Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.', is 'The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.' neither a logical follow-up nor a contradiction?

Not a pleasant prospect and not one easily avoided---not even by any reform package or proposal that I've seen.###The prospect can be avoided by simply following the very valid proposals received.