inputs:
With no explanation, label each line with "O", "organization-other", "other-astronomything", "art-broadcastprogram", "art-film", "art-music", "art-other", "art-painting", "art-writtenart" or "building-airport" preceded by ":".
The
Foundation
also
asked
NASA
to
investigate
whether
a
transponder
should
be
placed
on
the
asteroid
to
enable
more
accurate
tracking
of
how
its
orbit
would
be
changed
by
the
Yarkovsky
effect
.

targets:
The:O
Foundation:O
also:O
asked:O
NASA:organization-other
to:O
investigate:O
whether:O
a:O
transponder:O
should:O
be:O
placed:O
on:O
the:O
asteroid:O
to:O
enable:O
more:O
accurate:O
tracking:O
of:O
how:O
its:O
orbit:O
would:O
be:O
changed:O
by:O
the:O
Yarkovsky:other-astronomything
effect:other-astronomything
.:O


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: When asked about the product, Isaiah said, 'People couldnt hear me talk and I had to pull out the earphone and talk on the phone.'.
B: Isaiah liked the product .

targets: not-entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The jeweler printed the name .
B: The jeweler caused the printing .

targets: entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: someone gushed that a particular thing happened .
B: that thing didn't happen .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Matthew heard that old logicians never die , they just vacate the premises
B: Matthew did not hear a pun


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Amanda zipcoded the alkop.
B: Nothing touched anything else .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Share prices on major exchanges in Asia and Europe fell sharply Monday , after Friday 's deep decline on Wall Street increased fears that a recession may hit the United States .
B: United States is an organization


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Following the Board meeting on Wednesday , you are invited to join with members of the DISCO Forum for a Wednesday evening reception and dinner , including a guest speaker .
B: The joining happened


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: The girl and the boy are dating and she is really happy
B: The girl and the boy are dating and she is really unfortunate

targets: contradiction.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: He has written a number of commercial jingles, such as AT&T 's " Reach Out. "
B: He has written a number of commercial jingles, such as AT&T's "Reach Out and Touch Someone."

targets: neutral.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". More than 18% of Nobel Prizes have been won by people from which ethnic group?

A: More than 18% of Nobel Prizes have been won by African Americans.
B: More than 18% of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jewish people.

targets: B.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". He weighs as much as a building.

A: He is very heavy.
B: He is very light.

targets: A.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B" or "C". What does Remy need to do before this?

A: leave the items alone
B: check the item
C: throw the item away


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The woman wanted to sell her computer hardware.

A: She installed new software on the computer.
B: She deleted old files on the computer.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "NOT ENOUGH INFO", "REFUTES" or "SUPPORTS".
A: Charlemagne was crowned by his wife .
B: Charlemagne reached the height of his power in 800 when he was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day at Old St. Peter 's Basilica .

targets: REFUTES.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is denied. C. The Subpoena Comports With Rule 17(c) Finally, Nasdaq urges that the Subpoena contravenes Rule 17(c) because the documents that it seeks are insufficiently relevant to warrant admission at trial and, in any event, are procurable through means other than the Subpoena. Br. at 9-11. The Court disagrees. As discussed in the September 20 and December 15 Orders, a party seeking the issuance of a subpoena under Rule 17(c) must satisfy the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Nixon. In particular, the party must demonstrate the materials targeted by the subpoena are (i) relevant, (ii) admissible, and (iii) specifically identified. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700, 94 S.Ct. 3090; see also United States v. Yudong Zhu, 13-cr-761, 2014 WL 5366107, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Binday, 12-cr-152, 2013 WL

A: recognizing courts inherent power to issue subpoenas
B: recognizing applicability of discovery rule
C: recognizing nixons continuing applicability to defense subpoenas issued to third parties
D: recognizing applicability of  312 in the instance of an agents divulgence of confidential information to a third party at the third partys behest

targets: C.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "false" or "true".
Permission Details DMCA The Labor Day parades are over. The bands have packed up. The muscular speeches celebrating workers are finished. The trash is getting collected from parks across the country. And now conservative politicians from Trump on down will revive their systematic efforts to weaken unions and undermine workers. Trump -- despite all the populist bunting that decorates his speeches -- sustains the deeply entrenched Republican antipathy to organized workers. Their attack is relentless. Trump's budget calls for deep cuts in the Labor Department, eviscerating job training programs and cutting -- by 40 percent -- the agency that does research on workplace safety. It would eliminate the program that funds education of workers on how to avoid workplace hazards. It even savages money for mine safety enforcement for the miners Trump claims to love. Trump is systematically reversing any Obama rule that aided workers. He signed legislation scrapping the rule that required federal contractors to disclose violations of workplace safety and employment and anti-discrimination laws. His Labor Secretary has announced his intention to strip millions of workers of the overtime pay they would have received under Obama DOL regulations. Trump is creating a pro-business majority at the National Labor Relations Board, which will roll back Obama's efforts to make it easier for workers to organize, and make it possible to hold home companies responsible for the employment practices of their franchisees. The GOP's Anti-Union Strategy This is simply standard operating procedure for today's Republican party. Long ago, Republicans realized that organized labor was a central "pillar," as Grover Norquist described it, of Democratic Party strength. Now Republican office holders at every level -- from county officials to statehouses to judges -- know that their job is to weaken labor unions. From right to work laws to administrative regulations to court challenges, Republicans sustain an unrelenting attack. And aided by our perverse globalization strategies, they've been remarkably successful. Unions are down to about 7 percent of the private workforce. Public employee unions, a relative stronghold, are facing court challenges -- essentially allowing workers to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations without paying dues -- that will decimate their membership. True conservatives would embrace unions. They are a classic "mediating institution," a voluntary civic organization between government and the individual. Unions increase the voice and power of workers in the workplace, helping to keep executive accountable, and to protect workers from abuse. They also educate their members, teach democracy, and are central to community volunteer and service efforts. They teach and practice democratic citizenship. The modern Republican Party, of course, is the party of big business and big money. It isn't conservative; it is partisan. And weakening unions is a constant target. While Republicans understand how important unions are to Democrats and to workers, Democrats don't seem to get it. Sure, they line up to get union donations; most will vote to defend unions and worker programs. But as the money in politics has gotten bigger and the unions have gotten weaker, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful. The result is clear. When Republicans get control, they attack unions relentlessly. When Democrats gain control, as they did in 2012 with the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses, labor law reform, empowering workers to organize is not a priority. Obama essentially told unions that if they could get the votes, he'd sign the law, but he wasn't leading the charge. And so as under Carter and Clinton, changing the law to make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively didn't happen. Unions Under Siege Now unions are under siege. Yet it is hard to imagine how a small "d" democracy can be robust, or a large "D" Democratic Party can regain its mojo without a revived movement of workers. It's time for Democrats at every level to realize: strengthening workers and their unions isn't an elective; it's a requirement and a first priority. The loop works like this: Unions are in decline. As a result, unions lose influence inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats then feel no pressure to stem unions' decline, and the economically disadvantaged lose what was once their most powerful advocate. Then the cycle continues. We cannot revive unions, and we have no template for egalitarian politics without them. Unions aren't simply economic actors. They're political actors. Labor still needs the Democrats. The Democrats, more than they realize, still need labor. But most of all, all those who want to build a fairer society need their partnership. Republican elites understand the doom loop. Big business, small business, and Tea Party alike have pushed hard against unions. As the parties have polarized, Republicans have taken the gloves off, risking the votes of the 40 percent of union members who back Republicans in order to crush a pillar of the Democratic coalition. Even President Bernie Sanders would have real trouble rebuilding unions in the face of a Republican Congress and a federal judiciary eager to swat down pro-labor executive action. Even without Republican politicians digging their graves, labor unions face deep challenges. In the private sector, unions must sign contracts workplace by workplace. Gawker writers here and home-care workers there will continue to organize their workplaces, but the barriers remain dauntingly high. In the public sector, unions have stood steady. But cops and teachers alike face blowback for putting their own prerogatives above the public interest. And if the Supreme Court bans the collection of agency fees in the public sector (thus imposing "right to work"), public-sector union membership could halve in a decade. Permission Details DMCA The Labor Day parades are over. The bands have packed up. The muscular speeches celebrating workers are finished. The trash is getting collected from parks across the country. And now conservative politicians from Trump on down will revive their systematic efforts to weaken unions and undermine workers. Trump -- despite all the populist bunting that decorates his speeches -- sustains the deeply entrenched Republican antipathy to organized workers. Their attack is relentless. Trump's budget calls for deep cuts in the Labor Department, eviscerating job training programs and cutting -- by 40 percent -- the agency that does research on workplace safety. It would eliminate the program that funds education of workers on how to avoid workplace hazards. It even savages money for mine safety enforcement for the miners Trump claims to love. Trump is systematically reversing any Obama rule that aided workers. He signed legislation scrapping the rule that required federal contractors to disclose violations of workplace safety and employment and anti-discrimination laws. His Labor Secretary has announced his intention to strip millions of workers of the overtime pay they would have received under Obama DOL regulations. Trump is creating a pro-business majority at the National Labor Relations Board, which will roll back Obama's efforts to make it easier for workers to organize, and make it possible to hold home companies responsible for the employment practices of their franchisees. The GOP's Anti-Union Strategy This is simply standard operating procedure for today's Republican party. Long ago, Republicans realized that organized labor was a central "pillar," as Grover Norquist described it, of Democratic Party strength. Now Republican office holders at every level -- from county officials to statehouses to judges -- know that their job is to weaken labor unions. From right to work laws to administrative regulations to court challenges, Republicans sustain an unrelenting attack. And aided by our perverse globalization strategies, they've been remarkably successful. Unions are down to about 7 percent of the private workforce. Public employee unions, a relative stronghold, are facing court challenges -- essentially allowing workers to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations without paying dues -- that will decimate their membership. True conservatives would embrace unions. They are a classic "mediating institution," a voluntary civic organization between government and the individual. Unions increase the voice and power of workers in the workplace, helping to keep executive accountable, and to protect workers from abuse. They also educate their members, teach democracy, and are central to community volunteer and service efforts. They teach and practice democratic citizenship. The modern Republican Party, of course, is the party of big business and big money. It isn't conservative; it is partisan. And weakening unions is a constant target. While Republicans understand how important unions are to Democrats and to workers, Democrats don't seem to get it. Sure, they line up to get union donations; most will vote to defend unions and worker programs. But as the money in politics has gotten bigger and the unions have gotten weaker, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party has become more powerful. The result is clear. When Republicans get control, they attack unions relentlessly. When Democrats gain control, as they did in 2012 with the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses, labor law reform, empowering workers to organize is not a priority. Obama essentially told unions that if they could get the votes, he'd sign the law, but he wasn't leading the charge. And so as under Carter and Clinton, changing the law to make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively didn't happen. Unions Under Siege Now unions are under siege. Yet it is hard to imagine how a small "d" democracy can be robust, or a large "D" Democratic Party can regain its mojo without a revived movement of workers. It's time for Democrats at every level to realize: strengthening workers and their unions isn't an elective; it's a requirement and a first priority. The loop works like this: Unions are in decline. As a result, unions lose influence inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats then feel no pressure to stem unions' decline, and the economically disadvantaged lose what was once their most powerful advocate. Then the cycle continues. We cannot revive unions, and we have no template for egalitarian politics without them. Unions aren't simply economic actors. They're political actors. Labor still needs the Democrats. The Democrats, more than they realize, still need labor. But most of all, all those who want to build a fairer society need their partnership.

targets: true.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not_related" or "related".
A: Labor Day started in China.
B: USS Safeguard -LRB- ARS-25 -RRB- was an commissioned by the U.S. Navy during World War II .. U.S. Navy. U.S. Navy. Her task was to come to the aid of stricken vessels .. Safeguard was laid down on 5 June 1943 by the Basalt Rock Company in Napa , California ; launched on 20 November 1943 ; and commissioned on 30 September 1944 at the Southern Pacific Docks , Vallejo , California , Lt. J. F. Simmons in command .. Basalt Rock Company. Basalt Rock Company


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
Went here for Mother's Day and my crepe was free bc I was a mom; talk about customer service.

targets: positive.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
There was a steak review.  Someone raved how fantastic it tasted!


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Tom is about to give a speech to a crowd and there is a mic stand about four feet in front of him. Tom wants to let everyone hear him while he gives his speech.

A: Tom decides not to use the mic stand and yells at the crowd.
B: Tom walks up to the mic stand and addresses the crowd in a moderate voice using the microphone.


inputs: A person is trying to stack balls, flowers, bottles, and boxes. Which are the easiest to stack?

targets: boxes.

dataset: tsi-prost


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "DON'T KNOW", "NO" or "YES".
A: In Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states, a very similar product is called "doktorskaya kolbasa" (, lit. "doctor's sausage"). However, this product is normally made from a mixture of beef and pork (sometimes beef and lamb or chicken for religious reasons), and does not include pieces of fat or myrtle; mortadella-style sausages with pieces of fat are called "lubitelskaya" and "stolichnaya". The Russian dish contains only cardamom, and on occasion coriander and nutmeg, as its seasonings, and by tradition eggs and milk are added, which, again by tradition, are not common in mortadella. Unlike mortadella, "doktorskaya kolbasa" contains lower amounts of fat and is high in proteins.
B: Given the differences or similarities between mortadella and doctor's sausage, is it reasonable to assume that, on average, the difference in the amount of fat comes from dairy products rather than from fat in the meat?

targets: NO.

dataset: tsi-condaqa


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Most people would rather:

A: Eat a human fetus
B: Eat an entire buck including the antlers

dataset: tsi-wouldyourather


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: PersonX sends PersonY out As a result, PersonX wants sit alone and contemplate life
B: PersonX needs PersonY to run an errand

targets: weakener.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: Several menu boards are showing items for sale along with prices. A restaurant's sign shows its food items are expensive.
B: There is a line of people waiting to order their food.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Mary, Arthur and Nicole are from Malaysia, Chile and Mexico respectively.
B: Mary is not from Malaysia.

dataset: tsi-lonli


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". View ÷ as a random digit instead of a mathematical operation. Q: What is the first digit of 6÷2? A:

A:  3
B:  6


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment" or "not-entailment".
A: My daughter likes to work out with me when I do exercises. After I do an exercise she will try to mimic it. When I do military presses with dumbbells she also tries. But she cannot even lift them off the floor. This always makes me feel very strong for some reason.
B: My daughter tries to lift one dumbbell at a time ends after My daughter like to work out with me

targets: entailment.

dataset: tsi-tracie


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "False" or "True".
A: Susan knew that Ann's son had been in a car accident, because she told her about it. The she is more likely to refer to Ann than Susan because  'she' is an important part of the story and the 'he' might refer to the son
B: In "Susan knew that Ann's son had been in a car accident, because she told her about it. ", The she is more likely to refer to Ann than Susan because  'she' is an important part of the story and the 'he' might refer to the son

targets: False.

dataset: tsi-winowhy


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "no" or "yes".
A: We know that increased demand or increased yield per acre causes increased supply. increased demand and increased supply causes increased price. We observed the farm has an increased yield per acre and the demand is high.
B: Would there is an increased price if reduced supply instead of increased supply?

targets: no.

dataset: tsi-cladder


inputs:
With no explanation, label each line with "O", "organization-company", "product-airplane", "art-broadcastprogram", "art-film", "art-music", "art-other", "art-painting", "art-writtenart" or "building-airport" preceded by ":".
A
few
seconds
later
,
controllers
turned
their
attention
to
the
Eastern
L-1011
,
telling
them
that
Air
Caribbean
flight
309
would
now
be
following
them
for
final
descent
.

targets:
A:O
few:O
seconds:O
later:O
,:O
controllers:O
turned:O
their:O
attention:O
to:O
the:O
Eastern:O
L-1011:product-airplane
,:O
telling:O
them:O
that:O
Air:organization-company
Caribbean:organization-company
flight:O
309:O
would:O
now:O
be:O
following:O
them:O
for:O
final:O
descent:O
.:O


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: When asked about the product, Lundyn said, 'After my phone got to be about a year old, it's been slowly breaking despite much care on my part.'.
B: Lundyn did not like the product .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The bill shed 50 pages of pork-barrel addons .
B: 50 pages were emitted .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: someone gushed that a particular thing happened .
B: that thing might or might not have happened .

targets: not-entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Naiomy heard that he lit the arrow head because he wanted to fire it
B: Naiomy heard a pun

targets: entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The gink transported.
B: Something good happened .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The British Embassy in Jakarta says a Royal Navy vessel will stay in Indonesian waters .
B: Royal Navy is a day of the month


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: My goal , however optimistic , is to execute the risk policy by the end of today .
B: The executing did not happen


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: The two men are sitting in front of the fountain.
B: The eleven men are sitting in front of the fountain.

targets: contradiction.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: It is a collection of both his solo work and also work of Orange Juice, the band he fronted from 1979 to the mid-80s.
B: It is a collection of both also work of Orange Juice, the band he fronted from 1979 to the mid-80s.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". In which countries in Europe is weed legal?

A: Recreational use of weed is illegal in all European countries except Georgia but is decriminalized in some.
B: Weed is legal in the Netherlands.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The stove had the heat of the Chernobyl power plant right after the meltdown

A: The stove is cold
B: The stove is very hot


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B" or "C". What will happen to Tracy?

A: strong
B: lazy
C: passive


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The gardener wanted more plants to flourish.

A: He planted a variety of seeds.
B: He put fertilizer in the soil.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "NOT ENOUGH INFO", "REFUTES" or "SUPPORTS".
A: Ochoa warns Paul that he is about to be shot by a sniper in Death Wish II .
B: A sniper scouts Kersey and attempts to kill him , but Ochoa warns Paul and shoots the sniper dead .

targets: SUPPORTS.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As the Superior Ironworks court noted, section 38.004 specifically authorizes a trial court to take judicial notice of the usual and customary attorneys’ fees and of the contents of the case file without receiving further evidence in certain circumstances. 789 S.W.2d at 431. However, the award of appellate attorneys’ fees in this case is predicated on section 305.005 of the Finance Code, not section 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This court has previously held that section 38.004 cannot be used to justify the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees recovered outside of section 38.001. See Valdez v. Valdez, 930 S.W.2d 725, 732-33 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ); see also London v. London, 94 S.W.3d 139, 147-49 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We sustain the Parr defendants’ ninth point

A: holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees
B: holding fees mandatory under predecessor statute of  38001
C: holding that trial courts may not use section 38004 to take judicial notice of reasonableness of attorneys fees awarded under statute other than section 38001
D: holding that a party may recover attorneys fees under section 38001 only if the party prevails on a cause of action for which attorneys fees are available and recovers damages


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "false" or "true".
When the Graham-Cassidy bill failed to reach the Senate floor last week, the media wanted to put a stake in the heart of the administration’s agenda, declaring all Obamacare repeal efforts to be dead. For the millions of Americans struggling under the Affordable Care Act regime, however, the fight to make lemonade out of lemons must continue this fall. Luckily, conservatives in Congress who want to see the end of Obamacare and understand the perils of inaction are not giving up. Earlier this week, America Rising Squared, a conservative policy organization which I lead, issued a path forward. We outline five popular conservative actions Congress and the president can take by the end of the year to protect taxpayers and those disproportionately harmed by the ACA while the larger repeal effort remains delayed until next year. The first step is to protect them from new Obamacare taxes coming in January. Americans should be encouraged to know that conservatives in the Senate have introduced legislation to stop the health insurance tax and the medical device tax. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and 10 fellow conservative senators, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced legislation last week to stop the insurance tax. In the House, a bipartisan effort is underway to do the same, led by Republican Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. These members of Congress understand that Obamacare taxes will harm Americans of all walks of life, and will disproportionately harm seniors and small businesses. In all, if Congress fails to act, the health insurance tax would amount to a new annual $14.3 billion tax increase. Republicans don’t want to see a tax hike go into effect on their watch, and Democrats don’t want to put more of a burden on vulnerable Americans, so action is required now. Second, there should be no bailouts for Obamacare. While bipartisanship is a key to success in getting legislation passed, the president and conservatives in Congress ought to fight back against all efforts to bail out this law. When House Republicans sued President Obama in 2014 over the health-care act's cost-sharing subsidies, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, deeming these bailouts unconstitutional. The Obama administration appealed, so today President Trump can easily drop that appeal and end unconstitutional Obamacare cronyism. Liberals in the Senate want new bailouts, but conservatives such as Cruz have warned colleagues that they must oppose any such efforts. The third step needed to cripple the health care law and protect Americans is for President Trump to direct the IRS to weaken the individual mandate and expand the hardship exemptions. The individual mandate has forced many Americans to purchase coverage they do not want and cannot afford, and even candidate Obama admitted in 2008 that under Massachusetts' plan, “there are people who are paying ﬁnes and still can’t afford [health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were.” He was right, and President Trump can give these Americans relief from fines easily by directing the IRS to ease the mandate. The two final steps the president and Republicans in Congress can take before the end of the year is to fully implement 90 percent cuts to Obamacare marketing, which would save the federal government some $90 million, and fully protect American seniors from new taxes on Medicare plans. Among the taxes going into effect next year, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D will see taxes increased nearly $3,000 each over the next decade if Congress fails to act. Time is running out, and President Trump and Republicans in Congress must act now to stop new Obamacare taxes, end the cronyism of bailouts, free Americans from burdensome federal mandates, cut wasteful ACA marketing, and protect America’s seniors. President Trump and conservatives have it within their power today to stop the most harmful aspects of the health care law, but time is short; the time to act is now.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not_related" or "related".
A: Anonymous protested an organization.
B: The Price of the Ticket is a collection of James Baldwin 's writing that was published in 1985 .. James Baldwin. James Baldwin. It is a collection of essays spanning more than 40 years .. These are Baldwin 's commentaries on race in America .. race. Race ( classification of human beings ). James Baldwin  : The Price of the Ticket is a 1989 biographical film by director Karen Thorsen .. James Baldwin. James Baldwin. Karen Thorsen. Karen Thorsen


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
I just got here!

targets: neutral.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
Once upon a time the model made a super genuine perfect decision.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Chris has a busy work-life and is equally busy at home, since he wants to help his wife with taking care of their newborn baby as much as he can. Chris is tired of multitasking and wants to be able to focus his efforts.

A: Chris chooses to spend more time with his family and to focus less on work.
B: Chris decides to focus on his work and devotes less time to his family.

targets: A.


inputs: A person drops a plate, an egg, a mirror, and a pen from a balcony. Which object is the least likely to break?

targets: pen.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "DON'T KNOW", "NO" or "YES".
A: In Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states, a very similar product is called "doktorskaya kolbasa" (, lit. "doctor's sausage"). However, this product is normally made from a mixture of beef and pork (sometimes beef and lamb or chicken for religious reasons), and does not include pieces of fat or myrtle; mortadella-style sausages with pieces of fat are called "lubitelskaya" and "stolichnaya". Instead, it is flavoured with just cardamom, sometimes coriander and nutmeg, and also usually contains eggs and milk, which are very rarely absent in the traditional mortadella. Unlike mortadella, "doktorskaya kolbasa" contains higher amounts of fat and is high in proteins.
B: If this dish was made without pork, would the majority of a random sample of such servings mortadella be kosher, i.e. not violating other rules such as the mixing of meat and milk?


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Most people would rather:

A: Have a crappy car and house, but have lots of money
B: Have a fancy car and house, but have no money


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: PersonX plays basketball at the park As a result, PersonX wants to rest and drink some water.
B: PersonX can play basketball forever.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: The black dog is by a soccer ball and the brown dog is running. Two dogs are playing together on a soccer field.
B: The brown dog is terrified of the black dog.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Alexander has a case. It is pink in colour.
B: Alexander is pink in colour.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Redefine π as 397 mod 5. Q: What is the first digit of π? A:

A:  2
B:  3


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment" or "not-entailment".
A: Jessica wanted her own room. But the only choice was the attic. "Initially, she enjoyed the space and privacy." "But later, she developed a cough." She didn't realize how dusty the attic was.
B: She did not like sharing her room. ends before But the only choice be the attic

targets: not-entailment.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "False" or "True".
A: Dr. Adams informed Kate that she had cancer and presented several options for future treatment. The she is more likely to refer to Kate than Dr. Adams because Because Dr. Adams was informing Kate about her/Dr. Adams' retirement
B: In "Dr. Adams informed Kate that she had cancer and presented several options for future treatment. ", The she is more likely to refer to Kate than Dr. Adams because Because Dr. Adams was informing Kate about her/Dr. Adams' retirement


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "no" or "yes".
A: We know that jyka causes yupt and qwiu. yupt and qwiu causes kwox.
B: Would an individual is not kwox if jyka instead of not jyka?


inputs:
With no explanation, label each line with "O", "other-disease", "art-broadcastprogram", "art-film", "art-music", "art-other", "art-painting", "art-writtenart", "building-airport" or "building-hospital" preceded by ":".
One
serious
effect
on
envenomed
victims
is
hemorrhage
syndrome
.

targets:
One:O
serious:O
effect:O
on:O
envenomed:O
victims:O
is:O
hemorrhage:other-disease
syndrome:other-disease
.:O


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: When asked about the product, Yitta said, 'After my phone got to be about a year old, it's been slowly breaking despite much care on my part.'.
B: Yitta liked the product .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The water seeped out .
B: The water was emitted .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: a particular person managed to do a particular thing .
B: that person did that thing .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Gabriella heard that he lit the arrow head because he wanted to fire it
B: Gabriella did not hear a pun


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Kevin trailed the verp.
B: Someone or something did not change physically .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Word of Monday 's attack came after U.S. military officials said at least 10 civilians were killed and three others wounded in an explosion Sunday in a market south of Baghdad .
B: Baghdad is a location


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: All three are extremist Taliban or their allies and known to be living in Pakistan .
B: The knowing happened


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: The man sits at a table doing crossword puzzles and drinking beer.
B: The man sits at a table doing crossword puzzles and drinking cider.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Alghanim Industries claimed that it collected revenues of $2.5 billion in 2009, but has not disclosed its financial standing since.
B: Alghanim Industries claimed that it collected revenues of $ $ 2.5 billion in 2009.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Where in the Americas can you legally use magic mushrooms?

A: Magic mushrooms are effectively legal in Brazil and Jamaica.
B: You can legally use magic mushrooms in the United States.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The stove had the heat of Walt Disney's cryogenically frozen body

A: The stove is very hot
B: The stove is cold

targets: B.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B" or "C". How would you describe Sydney?

A: unintelligent
B: stodgy
C: accomplished

targets: C.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". I reached the top of the building.

A: I walked upstairs.
B: I ran five miles.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "NOT ENOUGH INFO", "REFUTES" or "SUPPORTS".
A: Mitt Romney is an American businessman and politician .
B: Willard Mitt Romney , born March 12 , 1947 , is an actor , director and producer who has won numerous awards .

targets: REFUTES.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". discloses no published opinion in which we have directly addressed this doctrine, it has been recognized in binding precedent and applied by numerous sister circuits. See, e.g., Te Kuei Liu v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 645 F.2d 279, 285 (5th Cir. Unit A May 1981) (explaining that actions of American consul in Winnipeg, Canada, where alien’s relative visa petition had been forwarded, were not “within the ambit of our review”); Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212, 1214 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (citing Te Kuei Liu for proposition that “decisions of United States consuls on visa matters are nonreviewable by the courts”); Saavedra, 197 F.3d at 1159 (defining doctrine of consular nonreviewability); Doan v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 160 F.3d 508, 509 (8th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d

A: holding that the director of the office of domestic relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the rtkl because the director was administrative staff of the unified judicial system as defined in the judicial code 42 pacs  102
B: holding that decision of ins district director who was functional equivalent of a consular official in denying visarelated waiver was not subject to judicial review because there was no clear statutory grant of authority
C: holding that judicial review is available over the determination of whether extreme hardship exists though no jurisdiction exists to review the ultimate decision of whether to grant a waiver under  1186ac4a
D: holding that the action of denying parole is not an adjudication subject to judicial review


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "false" or "true".
Internet censorship is hurting conservative websites like DC Clothesline. If you enjoy our articles please consider making a small donation today. Thank YOU! ******************************************************************************** ( Natural News) A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering. The paper, entitled, “ Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members.” In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming? By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative). In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists. “Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph. “New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.” In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Gore and the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.” “The paper … concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true,” writes James Delingpole. He goes on to say: One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications. He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget. In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp. Are we about to see climate change alarmists owning up to the fact that real-world data show their software models to be rooted in junk science? The unraveling has begun, but there is so much political capital already invested in the false climate change narrative that it will take years to fully expose the depth of scientific fraud and political dishonesty underpinning the global warming hoax. What’s clear from all this is that IPCC software models were deliberately biased in favor of the worst-case “doomsday” predictions in order to terrorize the world with a fake climate change hoax. But now the fake science is catching up to them, and they’re getting caught in their own lies. The software models, by the way, were fraudulently programmed with dishonest model “weights” to produce alarming warming predictions no matter what temperature data points were entered into the system. This is best explained in this Natural News article which goes into great detail, covering the IPCC global warming software modeling hoax: The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data. What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker(Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from Audible.com, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there. Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models: From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added) Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science. Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources. …Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years. Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented. In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998. As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’. So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field. …Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study. For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments. According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels. Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years. Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998. Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations. Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’. What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world. Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998. The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium. Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it. On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’ But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.) Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point. Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.) When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance. One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth). But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.) Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’. When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44 One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45 In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern. Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study. What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results? Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’ Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at BN.com, Amazon.com and Audible.com. What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud. The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives. The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack. Courtesy of Natural News

targets: true.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not_related" or "related".
A: Red Velvet is comprised of five people.
B: Peace and Diversity Academy is a New York City public high school located in the Longwood neighborhood of the Bronx .. New York. New York ( state ). New York City. New York City. Longwood. Longwood, Bronx. Bronx. Bronx. Category  : Educational institutions established in 2004. Category  : Public high schools in New York City. Public. State school. New York. New York ( state ). New York City. New York City. Category  : Schools in the Bronx. Bronx. Bronx


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
Just follow your nose down the stairs and get yourself a sugar cookie (you deserve it).

targets: positive.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
It wasn't impressive. 1st: For a family, they have a kid friendly menu.

targets: negative.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Livia feels that she is too attached to material possessions which makes her life devoid of meaning. Livia wants to feel free.

A: Livia goes through her possessions and gets rid of a lot of things she has not used in a while.
B: Livia decides to get rid of everything she owns by destroying all the possessions in her life.


inputs: Four people are walking at identical speeds. The first walks around a house, the second walks around a microwave, the third walks around a book, and the fourth walks around a table. Which takes the longest amount of time to walk around?

targets: house.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "DON'T KNOW", "NO" or "YES".
A: In Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states, a very similar product is called "doktorskaya kolbasa" (, lit. "doctor's sausage"). However, this product is normally made from a mixture of beef and pork (sometimes beef and lamb or chicken for religious reasons), and does not include pieces of fat or myrtle; mortadella-style sausages with pieces of fat are called "lubitelskaya" and "stolichnaya". Instead, it is flavoured with just cardamom, sometimes coriander and nutmeg, and also usually contains eggs and milk, which are very rarely absent in the traditional mortadella. Unlike mortadella, "doktorskaya kolbasa" contains higher amounts of fat and is high in proteins.
B: Would someone with a crippling allergy to dairy products be safer choosing mortadella over doctor's sausage (assuming that a choice had to be made, and they couldn't ascertain the ingredients beforehand, having to rely on probabilities)?

targets: NO.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Most people would rather:

A: Be an amazing singer
B: Play an instrument amazing-ly(?)


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: PersonX sleeps so well As a result, PersonX wants get productive all day long
B: They do not work the next day

targets: weakener.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: A man jogs down a city street, with a line attached to his back that vanishes out of the left side of the picture; a smiling cyclist rides past. the man jogging is in the road
B: Car drivers frequently swear at the man.

targets: strengthener.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Is Diana's husband negative.
B: Diana does not have a husband.

targets: contradiction.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Redefine π as 613. Q: What is the first digit of π? A:

A:  3
B:  6


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment" or "not-entailment".
A: Fred went on a hike by himself. "Halfway through the hike, he saw a moose." The moose started walking towards him. "Terrified, Fred sprinted back." He decided he was too scared to go back into the woods.
B: He felt unprepared for the hike. starts before he saw a moose.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "False" or "True".
A: Jackson was greatly influenced by Arnold, though he lived two centuries earlier. The he is more likely to refer to Arnold than Jackson because  of his role in the 'Avengers' movies, where he was a member of the Avengers
B: In "Jackson was greatly influenced by Arnold, though he lived two centuries earlier. ", The he is more likely to refer to Arnold than Jackson because  of his role in the 'Avengers' movies, where he was a member of the Avengers

targets: False.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "no" or "yes".
A: Method 1: We look directly at how jyka correlates with kwox in general. Method 2: We look at this correlation case by case according to yupt.
B: To understand how jyka affects kwox, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?

targets: yes.


inputs:
With no explanation, label each line with "O", "art-broadcastprogram", "art-film", "art-music", "art-other", "art-painting", "art-writtenart", "building-airport", "building-hospital" or "building-hotel" preceded by ":".
In
the
mid
2010s
,
a
fourth
flue
stack
coupled
with
a
scrubber
(
for
FGD
)
and
additional
pollution
control
devices
(
including
an
SCR
system
for
reduction
)
were
connected
to
generation
block
2
of
the
station
,
significantly
reducing
the
amount
of
particulate
pollution
emanating
from
the
block
.

targets:
In:O
the:O
mid:O
2010s:O
,:O
a:O
fourth:O
flue:O
stack:O
coupled:O
with:O
a:O
scrubber:O
(:O
for:O
FGD:O
):O
and:O
additional:O
pollution:O
control:O
devices:O
(:O
including:O
an:O
SCR:O
system:O
for:O
reduction:O
):O
were:O
connected:O
to:O
generation:O
block:O
2:O
of:O
the:O
station:O
,:O
significantly:O
reducing:O
the:O
amount:O
of:O
particulate:O
pollution:O
emanating:O
from:O
the:O
block:O
.:O


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: When asked about the movie, Jiya said, 'A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing.  '.
B: Jiya liked the movie .

targets: entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: There bubbled a fragant stew over the fire .
B: A fragant stew was emitted .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: a particular person managed to do a particular thing .
B: that person didn't do that thing .

targets: not-entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Sofia heard that he crashed through several windows , but felt no pane
B: Sofia heard a pun


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Hannah communicated to Rebecca how to rilt. Has anything or anyone changed physically?
B: Someone or something did not apply force onto something .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: A cease-fire between the government and rebels expired Friday , after the two sides failed to advance a peace process .
B: Friday is a person 's title


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: They actually itemized it as a DISPOSAL fee .
B: The itemizing did not happen


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: An old man dislikes nature.
B: A young man dislikes nature.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: The family returned to Russia prior to World War I, but was forced to flee following the Russian Revolution of 1917.
B: The family returned to Russia prior to World War I, but was forced to flee following the Russian Revolution of 1918.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". What's a country where most people love playing rugby?

A: There's no country where most people love playing rugby.
B: New Zealand is a country where most people love playing rugby.

targets: A.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The computer had the processing power of an android Einstein

A: The computer has a lot of processing power
B: The computer has a low amount of processing power


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B" or "C". Why did Bailey do this?

A: embarrass Quinn
B: give her a high five
C: celebrate with Quinn


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". I rubbed sandpaper on the wood.

A: The wood became sticky.
B: The wood became smooth.

targets: B.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "NOT ENOUGH INFO", "REFUTES" or "SUPPORTS".
A: Hairspray ( 2007 soundtrack ) is a certified engineer .
B: Born on June 12 , 1794 , Hairspray is a certified civil engineer known for designing and building the Thames Bridge in London .

targets: SUPPORTS.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in no way affect and has no bearing on the duration of his federal sentence. There is no need, therefore, for the district court to have made a finding of the likely length of Spiers’ Arkansas state sentence. Finally, Spiers’ argument that the uncertainty of the exact day that his federal sentence will begin renders the sentence infirm simply proves too much. The actual date upon which practically any consecutive sentences will take effect is uncertain. By definition, a consecutive sentence begins when the prior sentence is completed. There are many factors, including the defendant’s behavior during incarceration, the decisions of a parole board, the possibility of an executive pardon or a successful appeal, and even prison conditions, which might determine w , 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991) (<HOLDING>). As the district court’s decision to impose a

A: holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error
B: holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court sentenced him without allowing him to offer mitigating remarks
C: holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death
D: holding unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available  life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole

targets: C.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "false" or "true".
Allah's decrees enshrine inequality. Although Allah allows a husband to beat his wife, there is no provision in the Qur'an for a wife to beat her husband. Nor can she initiate a divorce. Only men can do so, and with relative ease. In "Heretic," Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains the shackles of sharia for women, including "the right of men to have unfettered sexual access to their wives, the right of men to practice polygamy, and the restriction of women's legal rights in divorce cases, in estate law, in cases of rape, in court testimony, and in consent to marriage." According to Sharia, women (and little girls) who are captives of war can be raped by their Muslim captors. But girls who have sex outside of marriage are flogged, and women who commit adultery are stoned. Two incidents almost 14 centuries apart show just how deeply the exploitation of women is ingrained In Sharia. In August 2014, after Muslim fighters captured Yazidi villages in the Sinjar region of northern Iraq, they executed the men and adolescent boys by spraying them with automatic-weapons fire. What happened to women and children might truly have been worse. As chronicled in the Islamic State on-line magazine "Dabiq," "After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Sharī'ah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State's authority to be divided." Captives were sent "to Syria or to other locations inside Iraq, where they were bought and sold for sex." According to a report in The New York Times, one of the captives, a 12-year-old Yazidi child, was raped by a devout Muslim fighter who "took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her - it condoned and encouraged it." Sadly, the victim was just one of countless thousands in the history of Islam. In 627, Muhammad and his fighters invaded the villages of the prosperous Banu Mustaliq Jewish tribe on the shores of the Red Sea. As with the Yazidis, the Jewish men and boys murdered by Muhammad and his Muslim hordes were spared the unthinkable atrocities their loved ones were about to suffer. In accordance with the law of Allah, many were raped, others sold as chattel. Muhammad, revered by Muslims the world over as the founder of their religion, took a Jewish woman as booty after having her husband and hundreds more men beheaded. Then he forced her on his bed and added her to his stable of wives and concubines. Though the Yazidi and Mustaliq atrocities bookend nearly 1,400 years of Islamic history, their treatment of female captives was virtually identical. Why? Because, as chronicled in "Dabiq," what the Islamic State does in the 21st century is an authentic application of the teachings and practices of Muhammad. Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells the horrifying story of a 13-year-old girl in Somalia who was found guilty of adultery after reporting that she had been raped by three men. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow - named after Muhammad's 9-year-old wife - was dragged, screaming and flailing, into a sports stadium in Kismayo to be stoned. "It took four men to bury her up to her neck in the hole," Hirsi Ali wrote. "Then fifty men spent ten minutes pelting her with rocks and stones. Then she was dug out of the ground and two nurses examined her to see if she was still alive. Someone found a pulse and breathing. Aisha was returned to the hole and the stoning continued." After she died, "a local sheik told a radio station that Aisha had provided evidence, confirmed her guilt, and 'was happy with the punishment under Islamic law.'" When will equality-minded Americans stand up for women's rights around the globe? Hank Hanegraaff is the author of "MUSLIM: What You Need to Know about the World's Fastest-Growing Religion" and the host of the "Bible Answer Man" radio broadcast and the "Hank Unplugged" podcast.

targets: false.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not_related" or "related".
A: Umbrella is a lead Rihanna single.
B: `` Umbrella '' is a song by Barbadian singer Rihanna from her third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad -LRB- 2007 -RRB- .. Rihanna. Rihanna. Good Girl Gone Bad. Good Girl Gone Bad. It features American rapper Jay Z , who co-wrote the song with its producers Tricky Stewart and Kuk Harrell , with additional writing from The-Dream .. Jay Z. Jay Z. Kuk Harrell. Kuk Harrell. Tricky Stewart. Tricky Stewart. The-Dream. The-Dream. The song was originally written with Britney Spears in mind , but her label rejected it .. Britney Spears. Britney Spears. `` Umbrella '' is a pop and R&B song with hip-hop and rock touches referring to a romantic and platonic relationship and the strength of that relationship .. R&B. Contemporary R&B. pop. Pop music. hip-hop. Hip hop music. rock. Rock n' roll. Entertainment Weekly ranked the song number one on the 10 Best Singles of 2007 , while Rolling Stone and Time listed the song at number three on the 100 Best Songs of 2007 .. Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly. Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone. Time. Time ( magazine ). The song has earned Rihanna several awards and nominations .. Rihanna. Rihanna. In 2007 , the song won two awards at the MTV Video Music Awards , when it was nominated for four .. MTV Video Music Awards. 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. At the 2008 Grammy Awards , `` Umbrella '' also earned Rihanna and Jay Z a Grammy Award for Best Rap / Sung Collaboration in addition to receiving nominations for Record of the Year and Song of the Year .. Rihanna. Rihanna. Jay Z. Jay Z. 2008 Grammy Awards. 2008 Grammy Awards. Grammy Award for Best Rap / Sung Collaboration. Grammy Award for Best Rap / Sung Collaboration. Record of the Year. Grammy Award for Record of the Year. Song of the Year. Grammy Award for Song of the Year. The song is also listed on Rolling Stones The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time at 412 .. Time. Time ( magazine ). The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. The song serves as the lead single to the album , and was released worldwide on March 29 , 2007 through Def Jam Recordings .. Def Jam. Def Jam Recordings. lead single. lead single. Def Jam Recordings. Def Jam Recordings. `` Umbrella '' was a commercial success , topping the charts in Australia , Canada , Germany , Spain , the Republic of Ireland , Sweden , Switzerland , the United Kingdom , and the United States .. In the United Kingdom , where the song 's chart performance generated controversy when the country was experiencing excessive flooding and large amounts of rain at the time , it was one of the most played songs on radio in the 2000s -LRB- decade -RRB- .. excessive flooding and large amounts of rain. 2007 United Kingdom floods. radio. radio. It managed to stay at number one on the UK Singles Chart for 10 consecutive weeks , the longest run at number one for any single of that decade , and is also one of the few songs to top the chart for at least 10 weeks .. UK Singles Chart. UK Singles Chart. The single was one of the highest digital debuts in the United States and remained at the top of the US Billboard Hot 100 for seven consecutive weeks .. Billboard. Billboard ( magazine ). Hot 100. Billboard Hot 100. The single 's accompanying music video was directed by Chris Applebaum and features , among all , Rihanna 's nude body covered in silver paint .. Rihanna. Rihanna. Chris Applebaum. Chris Applebaum. The video earned Rihanna a Video of the Year at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and Most Watched Video on MuchMusic.com at MuchMusic Video Awards .. Rihanna. Rihanna. MTV Video Music Awards. 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. Video of the Year. MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year. 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. 2007 MTV Video Music Awards. MuchMusic Video Awards. MuchMusic Video Awards. Along with countless amateurs , `` Umbrella '' has been covered by several notable performers from a variety of musical genres , including All Time Low , the Baseballs , Biffy Clyro , Manic Street Preachers , McFly , Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park , OneRepublic , Taylor Swift , and Vanilla Sky .. Time. Time ( magazine ). All Time Low. All Time Low. Baseballs. The Baseballs. Biffy Clyro. Biffy Clyro. Manic Street Preachers. Manic Street Preachers. McFly. McFly. Mike Shinoda. Mike Shinoda. Linkin Park. Linkin Park. OneRepublic. OneRepublic. Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift. Vanilla Sky. Vanilla Sky ( band ). Rihanna performed the song at the 2007 MTV Movie Awards , 2008 BRIT Awards and was the closing song of the `` Good Girl Gone Bad Tour '' -LRB- 2008 -RRB- , the `` Last Girl on Earth '' -LRB- 2010 -RRB- , and the `` Loud Tour '' -LRB- 2011 -RRB- .. Rihanna. Rihanna. Good Girl Gone Bad. Good Girl Gone Bad. 2007 MTV Movie Awards. 2007 MTV Movie Awards. 2008 BRIT Awards. 2008 BRIT Awards. Good Girl Gone Bad Tour. Good Girl Gone Bad Tour. Last Girl on Earth. Last Girl on Earth. Loud Tour. Loud Tour. It was included in the `` Diamonds World Tour '' -LRB- 2013 -RRB- , and the `` Anti World Tour '' -LRB- 2016 -RRB- .. Diamonds World Tour. Diamonds World Tour. Anti World Tour. Anti World Tour

targets: related.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
This shows in the contract as down payment money which is true because I verified how the dealership got the numbers.

targets: neutral.


inputs:
With no explanation, label the following with either "negative", "neutral" or "positive".
Really personable and upstanding person.

targets: positive.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Lana has to pick up her friend, but wants smoke marijuana. "Lana wants to feel a ""high""."

A: Lana asks her friend to take an Uber over to her place, so she can smoke marijuana instead of driving over.
B: Lana uses a bong to smoke while she drives to pick up her friend.


inputs: A person is trying to move a pile of blocks, a pile of flowers, a pile of flour, and a pile of balls from one side of a room to the other using only one hand. Which pile is the hardest to move?

targets: flour.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "DON'T KNOW", "NO" or "YES".
A: In Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet states, a very similar product is called "doktorskaya kolbasa" (, lit. "doctor's sausage"). However, this product is normally made from a mixture of beef and pork (sometimes beef and lamb or chicken for religious reasons), and does not include pieces of fat or myrtle; mortadella-style sausages with pieces of fat are called "lubitelskaya" and "stolichnaya". Instead, it is flavoured with just cardamom, sometimes coriander and nutmeg, and also usually contains eggs and milk, which are very rarely absent in the traditional mortadella. Unlike mortadella, "doktorskaya kolbasa" contains higher amounts of fat and is high in proteins.
B: Given the differences or similarities between mortadella and doctor's sausage, is it reasonable to assume that, on average, the difference in the amount of fat comes from dairy products rather than from fat in the meat?

targets: NO.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Most people would rather:

A: Have sex with rihannah
B: Have sex with beyonce


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: PersonX makes burgers PersonX is seen as eager
B: PersonX owns the restaurant

targets: strengthener.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "strengthener" or "weakener".
A: A small boy, wearing a yellow and red shirt, coloring on paper with a blue crayon. A boy and a girl color pictures together.
B: The small boy is alone.

targets: weakener.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Alan is sweeter than Scott. Jay is sweeter than Scott.
B: Alan is sweeter than Jay.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". Redefine e as 44+40. Q: What is the first digit of e? A:

A:  2
B:  8


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment" or "not-entailment".
A: Sam bought a new phone. He left it charging overnight. The battery exploded and caused a small fire. Sam sued the company and had his things replaced. "He got a different kind of phone, though."
B: His new phone became unusable. ends before Sam buy a new phone

targets: not-entailment.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "False" or "True".
A: There is a gap in the wall. You can see the garden through it . The it is more likely to refer to The gap than The wall because You can't see through walls.
B: In "There is a gap in the wall. You can see the garden through it . ", The it is more likely to refer to The gap than The wall because You can't see through walls.

targets: True.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "no" or "yes".
A: Method 1: We look at how yupt correlates with muvq case by case according to xyfo. Method 2: We look directly at how yupt correlates with muvq in general.
B: To understand how yupt affects muvq, is it more correct to use the Method 1 than Method 2?

targets: yes.


inputs:
With no explanation, label each line with "O", "person-artist/author", "person-other", "art-broadcastprogram", "art-film", "art-music", "art-other", "art-painting", "art-writtenart" or "building-airport" preceded by ":".
In
March
1942
,
agent
Charles
K.
Feldman
planned
on
making
a
film
adaptation
of
the
Chamberlain
novel
,
with
Howard
Hawks
as
a
proposed
producer
.

targets:
In:O
March:O
1942:O
,:O
agent:O
Charles:person-other
K.:person-other
Feldman:person-other
planned:O
on:O
making:O
a:O
film:O
adaptation:O
of:O
the:O
Chamberlain:person-artist/author
novel:O
,:O
with:O
Howard:person-other
Hawks:person-other
as:O
a:O
proposed:O
producer:O
.:O


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: When asked about the movie, Elijah said, 'A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing.  '.
B: Elijah did not like the movie .

targets: not-entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: The streets gushed with water .
B: Water was emitted .

targets: entailed.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: a particular person managed to do a particular thing .
B: that person might or might not have done that thing .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Graham heard that he crashed through several windows , but felt no pane
B: Graham did not hear a pun


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Alyssa tisked.
B: Nothing touched anything else .


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: Palestinian witnesses say an Israeli aircraft has fired missiles at suspected Hamas militants preparing to fire rockets at Israeli targets in the Gaza Strip .
B: Palestinian is a geographical/political entity


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "not-entailed" or "entailed".
A: I purchased a nissan from this dealship .
B: The purchasing happened


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: A Chinese woman runs a marathon on a rocky path.
B: A South Korean woman runs a marathon on a rocky path.

targets: contradiction.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "entailment", "neutral" or "contradiction".
A: Aspiring to become a painter, he tried but failed to win the prestigious Prix de Rome.
B: Aspiring to become a painter, he tried.

targets: entailment.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". What's the winter like in Paris compared to New York?

A: The winter in New York is colder and has more snow.
B: The winter in Paris is colder and has more snow.

targets: A.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The computer had the processing power of a deformed dodo clone

A: The computer has a lot of processing power
B: The computer has a low amount of processing power

targets: B.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B" or "C". Why did Quinn do this?

A: do a mental picture exercise
B: check out each of the paintings
C: see which piece Austin was talking about

targets: C.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A" or "B". The tablecloth needed to be washed.

A: The child yanked the tablecloth.
B: The child drew on the table.


inputs:
With no explanation, label A→B with either "NOT ENOUGH INFO", "REFUTES" or "SUPPORTS".
A: The Yale School of Drama was founded after 1924 .
B: Founded in 1924 as the Department of Drama in the School of Fine Arts , the school provides training in every discipline of the theatre : acting , design -LRB- set design , costume design , lighting design , projection design , and sound design -RRB- , directing , dramaturgy and dramatic criticism , playwriting , stage management , technical design and production , and theater management .

targets: REFUTES.


inputs:
With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his text messages with Krueger because those text messages would have “supported a [motion] to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct.” As Prozer contends, and the government concedes, the district court violated Clisby when it failed to address those two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Prozer raised those constitutional claims in clear and simple language. See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2013) (“A claim must be presented in clear and simple language, such that the district court may not misunderstand it.”). Although the court resolved most of Prozer’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims in rejecting Ground Three, it did not mention Prozer’s ineffective assistance claims concerning counsel’s failure to file the pretrial motions or the subpoena. See id. (<HOLDING>). For that reason, we vacate the district

A: holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim
B: holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
C: holding that the district court violated clisby by failing to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that consisted of two sentences found in the middle of a fifteenpage memorandum attached to the  2254 petition
D: holding that to demonstrate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel petition must establish that the alleged error was prejudicial in fact