Split (1)

train · 88.6k rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

prompt string	task_type string	answer list	data_source string
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people that was some very specific reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick voted for Brexit Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years what is the rush right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 250,000 children are living in poverty Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole'. Given the premise: 'one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive 2. what is the rush 3. 250,000 children are living in poverty 4. Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole 5. Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people that was some very specific reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick voted for Brexit Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years what is the rush right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 250,000 children are living in poverty Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole'. Given the premise: 'some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. what is the rush 2. Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years 3. right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 4. one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness 5. Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people that was some very specific reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick voted for Brexit Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years what is the rush right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 250,000 children are living in poverty Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole'. Given the premise: 'right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people 2. Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive 3. Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole 4. we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep 5. Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people that was some very specific reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick voted for Brexit Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years what is the rush right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 250,000 children are living in poverty Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole'. Given the premise: '250,000 children are living in poverty', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders 2. one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness 3. over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic 4. Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years 5. Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit one of the reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick supported Brexit was because he became very interested in homelessness Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders some of the countries with open borders have an income 80 percent less than the UK we should provide every homeless person with somewhere to sleep providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people that was some very specific reasons why Stephen Fitzpatrick voted for Brexit Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive over the shorter term, if Scotland say they want to go for independence, Stephen Fitzpatrick will be sad but will be supportive and optimistic Scotland gaining independence is a decision that will affect this generation and future generations and children and people not even born for decades and hundreds of years what is the rush right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 250,000 children are living in poverty Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide Stephen Fitzpatrick would or would not have supported the same argument to the UK as a whole'. Given the premise: 'if this is the time for Scotland to gain independence, then Stephen Fitzpatrick thinks it is for the Scottish people to decide', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. providing every homeless person with somewhere to sleep applies to potentially 500 million people 2. right now every nation around the world is trying to figure out how on earth they are going to recover from this economic and social disaster 3. Stephen Fitzpatrick thought economically we would be worst off but socially more cohesive 4. Stephen Fitzpatrick saw a real challenge with homelessness but also social equality in general as being part of a nation of 28 nations with open borders 5. Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Stephen Fitzpatrick cannot understand this is the time for Scotland to gain independence" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Audience Member 19 has seen awful effects on mental health from family who are at school awful effects on mental health from family who are at school has been so difficult Audience Member 19 thinks it is all well and good that Jo saying that teachers need a break these are young, developing minds, it is a million times worse for them if we are talking about the implications of adults and their mental health, think about the children Audience Member 19 thinks it is important that these things are done individually most people have had different issues that have shaped them Audience Member 19 thinks that trying to roll out the same thing for everyone doesn't work Audience Member 19 thinks that especially when it is young people, trying to roll out the same thing for everyone doesn't work everyone leads such different lives and everyone learns so differently it is not a one size fits all'. Given the premise: 'everyone leads such different lives and everyone learns so differently', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. these are young, developing minds, it is a million times worse for them 2. Audience Member 19 thinks it is all well and good that Jo saying that teachers need a break 3. Audience Member 19 thinks that especially when it is young people, trying to roll out the same thing for everyone doesn't work 4. it is not a one size fits all 5. most people have had different issues that have shaped them Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "most people have had different issues that have shaped them" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'should a vaccine come off, more than 50 percent of persons will get it it is still uncertain, if a vaccine comes off we will get the vaccine for more than 50 percent because we have learned more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine you didn't learn more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine in a week the comments David Lammy refers to were some time ago the expert body who advises on the details of the virus and the vaccine has published its interim recommendations a few weeks ago the expert body will publish the final recommendations when we get the final data about the vaccine the vaccine should be both effective and safe the vaccine beeing effective and safe are the two critical things that we’ll look into if people can pay for the vaccine, they will or will not get it more quickly Matt Hancock doesn't think that people paying for the vaccine, will get it more quickly is or isn't the government going to buy up all the doses so people won’t be able to go to a private doctor and say they would like the vaccine people buying the vaccine may not be in this phase, may not be eligible according to government guidelines, but they will buy it so they will have it Matt Hancock doesn't foresee that people will buy the vaccine privately it has been hard enough buying the vaccine as a government the deal with those who develop the vaccine has been done with the government we have bought the vaccine on behalf of the whole UK population, then we intend to roll out according to clinical priority'. Given the premise: 'you didn't learn more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine in a week', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Matt Hancock doesn't think that people paying for the vaccine, will get it more quickly 2. the comments David Lammy refers to were some time ago 3. is or isn't the government going to buy up all the doses so people won’t be able to go to a private doctor and say they would like the vaccine 4. it has been hard enough buying the vaccine as a government 5. we will get the vaccine for more than 50 percent because we have learned more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "we will get the vaccine for more than 50 percent because we have learned more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'should a vaccine come off, more than 50 percent of persons will get it it is still uncertain, if a vaccine comes off we will get the vaccine for more than 50 percent because we have learned more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine you didn't learn more about the details of both the virus and the vaccine in a week the comments David Lammy refers to were some time ago the expert body who advises on the details of the virus and the vaccine has published its interim recommendations a few weeks ago the expert body will publish the final recommendations when we get the final data about the vaccine the vaccine should be both effective and safe the vaccine beeing effective and safe are the two critical things that we’ll look into if people can pay for the vaccine, they will or will not get it more quickly Matt Hancock doesn't think that people paying for the vaccine, will get it more quickly is or isn't the government going to buy up all the doses so people won’t be able to go to a private doctor and say they would like the vaccine people buying the vaccine may not be in this phase, may not be eligible according to government guidelines, but they will buy it so they will have it Matt Hancock doesn't foresee that people will buy the vaccine privately it has been hard enough buying the vaccine as a government the deal with those who develop the vaccine has been done with the government we have bought the vaccine on behalf of the whole UK population, then we intend to roll out according to clinical priority'. Given the premise: 'people buying the vaccine may not be in this phase, may not be eligible according to government guidelines, but they will buy it so they will have it', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. it has been hard enough buying the vaccine as a government 2. the expert body will publish the final recommendations when we get the final data about the vaccine 3. Matt Hancock doesn't foresee that people will buy the vaccine privately 4. should a vaccine come off, more than 50 percent of persons will get it 5. is or isn't the government going to buy up all the doses so people won’t be able to go to a private doctor and say they would like the vaccine Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "is or isn't the government going to buy up all the doses so people won’t be able to go to a private doctor and say they would like the vaccine" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Fiona Bruce is going to come Jess Phillips agrees almost entirely with what Theo said in that the Government needs to act now to stimulate the jobs for younger people going forward younger people are going to be a lost generation the young people today people who are under 30 today have pretty much lived their entire economic lives since the 2008 downturn people who are under 30 have had to tighten their belts and have lost out on things that were there certainly when Jess Phillips was younger the reality is that the Government needs to announce, already have announced what the Government is going to do to help businesses get young people into training get young people into schemes like Theo says there can be different sectors there can be different standards and the Government needs to be responsive to what is actually happening out there without the Government being responsive to what is actually happening out there, we're just going to end up with a generation lost in the announcements last week with regard to the tutoring that school children will now get an hour before the announcement was made, those aged 16 to 18 were taken out of the announcement these are the people who are those aged 16 to 18 are the people who have already lost all their youth services we are going to need to help those aged 16 to 18 are the people had their schools cut for the entire time that they might have been there'. Given the premise: 'in that the Government needs to act now to stimulate the jobs for younger people going forward', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. get young people into schemes 2. those aged 16 to 18 are the people who have already lost all their youth services 3. people who are under 30 today have pretty much lived their entire economic lives since the 2008 downturn 4. an hour before the announcement was made, those aged 16 to 18 were taken out of the announcement 5. the reality is that the Government needs to announce, already have announced what the Government is going to do to help businesses Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "the reality is that the Government needs to announce, already have announced what the Government is going to do to help businesses" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'the fact that the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England is jaw-dropping investing money into Acorn Project could have created several thousand jobs the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference approaches in the situation of an independent Scotland, Kate Forbes would put either economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry it doesn't need to be exclusively economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry it doesn't need to be either economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry one of the great opportunities over the next three weeks are the economic opportunities that come for Scotland as a result of that just transition not all the levers are within Scotland we saw a decision made this week one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project Acorn Project is related to the carbon capture and storage in the North East the Acorn Project is the most well advanced project the Acorn Project is the most cost effective project we were sincerely hoping that the UK government would invest in the Acorn Project the billion pounds that had been promised instead the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England the BBC would not have called the fact that the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England as jaw-dropping'. Given the premise: 'the Acorn Project is the most well advanced project', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. in the situation of an independent Scotland, Kate Forbes would put either economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry 2. the Acorn Project is the most cost effective project 3. the fact that the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England is jaw-dropping 4. the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference approaches 5. one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'the fact that the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England is jaw-dropping investing money into Acorn Project could have created several thousand jobs the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference approaches in the situation of an independent Scotland, Kate Forbes would put either economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry it doesn't need to be exclusively economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry it doesn't need to be either economy or environment first when choosing what to do with the domestic oil industry one of the great opportunities over the next three weeks are the economic opportunities that come for Scotland as a result of that just transition not all the levers are within Scotland we saw a decision made this week one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project Acorn Project is related to the carbon capture and storage in the North East the Acorn Project is the most well advanced project the Acorn Project is the most cost effective project we were sincerely hoping that the UK government would invest in the Acorn Project the billion pounds that had been promised instead the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England the BBC would not have called the fact that the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England as jaw-dropping'. Given the premise: 'investing money into Acorn Project could have created several thousand jobs', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. instead the money that UK government has promised to the Acorn Project is going to projects in England 2. we saw a decision made this week 3. the Acorn Project is the most cost effective project 4. one of the great opportunities over the next three weeks are the economic opportunities that come for Scotland as a result of that just transition 5. one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "one of the greatest opportunities for Scotland was the Acorn Project" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'a delay in learning of six months is or is not genuinely devastating to a whole generation, as was suggested by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former head of Ofsted and the Chief Inspector of Schools the problem with sending kids back to the school, and the delay, is something that we should all be concerned about the fact is that the time that children spend in school at a vulnerable age is precious time it will be very hard for children to catch up after a long delay of returning to school definitely more should have been done in terms of planning the school returns there has been a failure of planning to get children back into school obviously, the pandemic arrangements have put an enormous strain on the infrastructures in our society if you look at what is required for children to go back to school, it’s not just the fact that children need to go back to school, it’s that society needs those children back into school society needs the children back in school for all the reasons that surround children being in school – not requiring child care the government should have gone about the planning of children returning to school in a more forthright and more detailed way'. Given the premise: 'obviously, the pandemic arrangements have put an enormous strain on the infrastructures in our society', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. definitely more should have been done in terms of planning the school returns 2. the fact is that the time that children spend in school at a vulnerable age is precious time 3. the government should have gone about the planning of children returning to school in a more forthright and more detailed way 4. there has been a failure of planning to get children back into school 5. if you look at what is required for children to go back to school, it’s not just the fact that children need to go back to school, it’s that society needs those children back into school Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "if you look at what is required for children to go back to school, it’s not just the fact that children need to go back to school, it’s that society needs those children back into school" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'George Unknown has talked about the Robert Genrik situation already, but the terms of social housing overall are xxx for a while, as has been alluded to, the stock of social housing has been slipping into the private sector a lot of times when the stock of social housing has slipped into the private sector, it's in negotiations that the community have not been privy to in 2018, the Government did mandate that, for developments above a certain number, communities need to be consulted the mandate from the government, that for developments above a certain number communities need to be consulted, is a welcome change there is something more pernicious that has been happening in the reduction of the social housing stock for a while Katie lives in an area of Worcestshire that has quite a lot of green belt we do need a lot more houses we need to be environmental about building a lot more houses there is a lot of houses that are run down and there are buildings that we could knock down and rebuild where they are we should rebuild and make these houses better than the new-builds that are currently being built there are brown belt places and places that should be knocked down and built with better houses contracts on brown belts, rather than green belts, would make better use of the space that's there contracts should not be taken out on green belts green belts should be protected environmentaly'. Given the premise: 'a lot of times when the stock of social housing has slipped into the private sector, it's in negotiations that the community have not been privy to', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. green belts should be protected environmentaly 2. there are brown belt places and places that should be knocked down and built with better houses 3. George Unknown has talked about the Robert Genrik situation already, but the terms of social housing overall are xxx 4. contracts on brown belts, rather than green belts, would make better use of the space that's there 5. in 2018, the Government did mandate that, for developments above a certain number, communities need to be consulted Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "in 2018, the Government did mandate that, for developments above a certain number, communities need to be consulted" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have Camilla who wants to send her children to school you have a number of schools who are embracing, happily or not, but planning to go ahead with the 1st June opening lots of schools are not planning to go ahead with the 1st June opening parents are supposed to make xxx of a number of schools planning to go ahead with 1st june openings and lots of schools not planning go ahead with 1st June openings some parents are or are not less risk averse some parents have or have not made better preparation parents can make any decent assessment by xxx the parents are probably a bit confused by the situation around schools reopening the situation around schools reopening is a row that has been going on Andy Burnham is not sure the row that has been going on around schools reopening helps parents let head teachers sit in the driving seat and decide when it is safe to open school parents will probably look most to head teachers for advice about safety of their kids reopening of schools should also be done in consultation with local councils the circumstances for reopening schools will differ from one place to another in terms of the teaching staff some of the teaching staff may be self-isolating there may be issues the schools have to deal with when we look at the staff there will be physical circumstances at the school the R rate, the R number, the re production number varies from one region to another near in the north of England we see a higher R number than in the south you can't blame any council for taking a cautious approach Andy Burnham says to government work in partnership with local councils absolutely say to them "let's get schools open on 1st June if we can but we respect the fact if a little longer is needed to get the arrangements in place, then so be it and we will work with you in partnership on that let's get away from teacher bashing we have seen too much of teacher bashing over the last few weeks the teachers have been working really hard through this period often teaching kids at home and being innovative in all the ways we would want them to be we need to sort of de he is collate this row and focus on practical steps so get kids back in school when it is safe to do so'. Given the premise: 'some of the teaching staff may be self-isolating', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. the teachers have been working really hard through this period often teaching kids at home and being innovative in all the ways we would want them to be 2. parents are supposed to make xxx of a number of schools planning to go ahead with 1st june openings and lots of schools not planning go ahead with 1st June openings 3. we have Camilla who wants to send her children to school 4. absolutely say to them "let's get schools open on 1st June if we can but we respect the fact if a little longer is needed to get the arrangements in place, then so be it and we will work with you in partnership on that 5. the circumstances for reopening schools will differ from one place to another in terms of the teaching staff Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "the circumstances for reopening schools will differ from one place to another in terms of the teaching staff" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'lots of young people who don't live in families haven't been able to date, haven't been able to meet each other don't be cautious to those who are being allowed to hug for the first time on next Monday we all know what we're talking about you have or don't have any recommendations on how to hug cautiously hugging day is coming up to hug cautiously is xxx get a partner who annoys you as much as Michelle Dewberry's partner annoys her you probably would never want to hug your partner you wouldn't need guidance of caution Michelle Dewberry's partner is or isn't going to be watching this episode of Question Time Michelle Dewberry is only joking about getting a partner who annoys you we have been denied human touch and connection we cannot underestimate what being denied human touch and connection has done to people's mental health you want to go hug somebody it's a good thing Michelle Dewberry is not in government Michelle Dewberry would be in trouble for saying that people should hug go hug whoever you want to hug use your common sense, get involved and just feel good again feeling good again is what we need'. Given the premise: 'we have been denied human touch and connection', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. we cannot underestimate what being denied human touch and connection has done to people's mental health 2. hugging day is coming up 3. to hug cautiously is xxx 4. you probably would never want to hug your partner 5. you want to go hug somebody Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "you want to go hug somebody" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'when Daisy Cooper says the first four million vulnerable people Daisy Cooper does or does not mean people to the age of 50 when Daisy Cooper says the first four million vulnerable peoople, she does or does not mean sooner than to the age of 50 the first four million which was the first four or five cohorts we are way beyond the first four or five cohorts now the situation we have is that none of us are safe until all of us are safe for as long as people in India cannot get the vaccine, not only will loads of people die but it also means that the virus will mutate again and that will turn up into other strains that will wash-up on our shores it is both the morally right thing to do, and also a self-interested thing to do to make sure that we get this parallel roll-out Norway is sending vaccines to India the US is sending vaccines at the moment the UK Government has not yet committed to sending vaccines to India the US is sending vaccines it's not using we need lots of countries to be sending vaccines to India we know that with all the vaccines that have been ordered, we have a surplus in the UK the Government should be enrolling on this parallel roll-out of the vaccine we could actually embark on this parallel roll-out where we are vaccinating our own population whilst also senning some vaccines through the Kofax international scheme as well a parallel vaccine roll-out is morally the right thing to do and it's self-interested for as long as we don't vaccinate people, they will die and the virus will mutate and wash up on our shores'. Given the premise: 'for as long as we don't vaccinate people, they will die and the virus will mutate and wash up on our shores', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. we are way beyond the first four or five cohorts now 2. the US is sending vaccines 3. when Daisy Cooper says the first four million vulnerable people Daisy Cooper does or does not mean people to the age of 50 4. Norway is sending vaccines to India 5. a parallel vaccine roll-out is morally the right thing to do and it's self-interested Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "a parallel vaccine roll-out is morally the right thing to do and it's self-interested" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Robin Shattock is involved in developing a vaccine as well at Imperial College London we are one of the two UK teams developing a vaccine Robin Shattock's team is / is not getting funding from the government we are getting government funding it still requires a huge effort for Robin Shattock's team to build a technology from scratch to give the kind of examples of the competition, there are 30 RNA companies around the world RNA technology is the particular technology that Pfizer used RNA technology is a new technology that’s at a tipping point our direct competition are two companies in Germany one of the two competing companies is BioNTech BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece even though BioNTech are well-funded we need to think in terms of the strategy as to how we’re going to nurture the vaccine industry we need a strategy which is more than just start-up we need a strategy that is sustainable and has a long-term strategic plan Robin Shattock's team is / is not getting those kind of funds from the secretary for health here Robin Shattock's team is getting support we fully anticipate that the government will want to see the two flagship programmes are supported to the hilt will the defeat in the house of lords of clauses obvious the Internal Market Bill -- this mopped be impact on internal policy, especially with president-elect enjoyeden'. Given the premise: 'even though BioNTech are well-funded', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. we need to think in terms of the strategy as to how we’re going to nurture the vaccine industry 2. we need a strategy which is more than just start-up 3. will the defeat in the house of lords of clauses obvious the Internal Market Bill -- this mopped be impact on internal policy, especially with president-elect enjoyeden 4. we fully anticipate that the government will want to see the two flagship programmes are supported to the hilt 5. BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Robin Shattock is involved in developing a vaccine as well at Imperial College London we are one of the two UK teams developing a vaccine Robin Shattock's team is / is not getting funding from the government we are getting government funding it still requires a huge effort for Robin Shattock's team to build a technology from scratch to give the kind of examples of the competition, there are 30 RNA companies around the world RNA technology is the particular technology that Pfizer used RNA technology is a new technology that’s at a tipping point our direct competition are two companies in Germany one of the two competing companies is BioNTech BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece even though BioNTech are well-funded we need to think in terms of the strategy as to how we’re going to nurture the vaccine industry we need a strategy which is more than just start-up we need a strategy that is sustainable and has a long-term strategic plan Robin Shattock's team is / is not getting those kind of funds from the secretary for health here Robin Shattock's team is getting support we fully anticipate that the government will want to see the two flagship programmes are supported to the hilt will the defeat in the house of lords of clauses obvious the Internal Market Bill -- this mopped be impact on internal policy, especially with president-elect enjoyeden'. Given the premise: 'Robin Shattock's team is / is not getting those kind of funds from the secretary for health here', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. we are getting government funding 2. we are one of the two UK teams developing a vaccine 3. Robin Shattock's team is getting support 4. we fully anticipate that the government will want to see the two flagship programmes are supported to the hilt 5. BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "BioNTech got grants from the German government of 350,000,250 million a piece" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'it's 7 months' time before the spending review students will be leaving school in 7 months' time education is absolutely fundamentally important education is one of the reasons Lucy Frazer went into politics it is really important we invest in young people one of the first announcements that Boris Johnson made when he became leader of the United Kingdom was to announce 14 billion pounds into education for the following three years the 14 billion pounds for education announced by Boris Johnson was to level up every single primary and secondary school pupil so that we had a good baseline the 14 billion pounds for education announced by Boris Johnson is a baseline, from which we are working we've just announced the 3 billion for education the door is not shut we need to review the evidence the spending review will be coming up in the autumn we will look at the spending review in the autumn'. Given the premise: 'it is really important we invest in young people', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. the 14 billion pounds for education announced by Boris Johnson was to level up every single primary and secondary school pupil so that we had a good baseline 2. the spending review will be coming up in the autumn 3. students will be leaving school in 7 months' time 4. the door is not shut 5. education is absolutely fundamentally important Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "education is absolutely fundamentally important" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall 2. even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away 3. our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have 4. you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule 5. we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law 2. The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that 3. our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have 4. the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall 5. we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law 2. our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have 3. we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that 4. Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests 5. you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule 2. even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away 3. our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have 4. The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that 5. we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law 2. The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that 3. even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference 4. we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule 5. even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Rosina can be helped by xxx we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that we’re not about to change the law on the two metre rule there’s good evidence actually, that you are safer you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule The Scientific Group on Emergencies, has advised all the governments of the UK on that Vaughan Gething is not about to risk the lives of our citizens, on the basis of what Rocco suggests the conclusion of that is Rosina’s business might go to the wall Rosina is not saying about reducing the social distancing of two metres, if that’s the law, that’s law even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have'. Given the premise: 'in the mind of the consumer, it’s very much scorched in about the two metre rule, about staying away from other people', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. we have a two metre rule in our regulations, we have to consider that 2. you have double the risk having a one metre rule, as opposed to a two metre rule 3. even if you reduced the rule to half a metre, Rosina thinks people are going to stay away 4. our dilemma is not just in the next week, or the next two weeks or the next month, Rosina thinks it is a much, much longer longterm problem that the hospitality are going to have 5. even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "even if you reduced the rule to one metre, Rosina doesn’t think that would make a lot of difference" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'AudienceMember 20210930QT13 understands that the government need to recruit more HGV drivers lots of industry bosses in the supermarket supply chain have been saying that low skilled worker visas should be given to the HGV drivers AudienceMember 20210930QT13 is really concerned that the government seem to be making HGV licences easier to get you don't need to have a car licence now you can immediately apply for an HGV licence letting people immediately apply for an HGV licence seems like an accident waiting to happen on the road the government are making becoming an HGV driver too easy Grant Shapps hears what Richard Walker says at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out there is no reason why Grant Shapps should not sort out the issue with HGV drivers giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers is not actually the solution Grant Shapps would move to giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers very quickly if that was the solution Grant Shapps does not rule out anything giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers is the least part of the solution'. Given the premise: 'Grant Shapps hears what Richard Walker says', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. AudienceMember 20210930QT13 is really concerned that the government seem to be making HGV licences easier to get 2. the government are making becoming an HGV driver too easy 3. giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers is the least part of the solution 4. letting people immediately apply for an HGV licence seems like an accident waiting to happen on the road 5. at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'AudienceMember 20210930QT13 understands that the government need to recruit more HGV drivers lots of industry bosses in the supermarket supply chain have been saying that low skilled worker visas should be given to the HGV drivers AudienceMember 20210930QT13 is really concerned that the government seem to be making HGV licences easier to get you don't need to have a car licence now you can immediately apply for an HGV licence letting people immediately apply for an HGV licence seems like an accident waiting to happen on the road the government are making becoming an HGV driver too easy Grant Shapps hears what Richard Walker says at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out there is no reason why Grant Shapps should not sort out the issue with HGV drivers giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers is not actually the solution Grant Shapps would move to giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers very quickly if that was the solution Grant Shapps does not rule out anything giving low skilled worker visas to the HGV drivers is the least part of the solution'. Given the premise: 'lots of industry bosses in the supermarket supply chain have been saying that low skilled worker visas should be given to the HGV drivers', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. the government are making becoming an HGV driver too easy 2. letting people immediately apply for an HGV licence seems like an accident waiting to happen on the road 3. AudienceMember 20210930QT13 is really concerned that the government seem to be making HGV licences easier to get 4. you don't need to have a car licence now 5. at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "at least in all the things that are going wrong at the moment, the issue with HGV drivers is one thing Grant Shapps could sort out" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'the spiking is horrific men need to think about how they change their behaviour there's a more fundamental point in the discussion about increase in spiking cases in the UK we've got to take the urgent and immediate action to address the increase in spiking cases in the UK every single day there are women in the UK who have to think twice before they walk down certain streets every single day there are women in the UK who have to look over their shoulder when they're out on a Friday or a Saturday night every single day there are women in the UK who have to doublecheck their charge in their battery every single day there are women in the UK who have to think about how they travel to and from places we've got to address that fundamental issue of there being women every single day in the UK who have to worry about their safety the answer to women having to worry about their safety is women thinking about how they change their behaviour Anas Sarwar is sorry frankly the answer being that women need to think about how they change their behaviour is wrong we should not be living in a society where any human being has to think twice about where they go we should not be living in a society where any human being regardless of their gender or their faith or their sexuality has to think twice about where they go it's sad that we are living in a society where any human being regardless of their gender or their faith or their sexuality has to think twice about where they go it is a sad reality of the Scotland and the UK we live in right now we've got to fundamentally change the sad reality of the Scotland and the UK we live in right now let's be honest about this'. Given the premise: 'we should not be living in a society where any human being regardless of their gender or their faith or their sexuality has to think twice about where they go', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. every single day there are women in the UK who have to think twice before they walk down certain streets 2. Anas Sarwar is sorry 3. men need to think about how they change their behaviour 4. we've got to fundamentally change the sad reality of the Scotland and the UK we live in right now 5. it's sad that we are living in a society where any human being regardless of their gender or their faith or their sexuality has to think twice about where they go Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "it's sad that we are living in a society where any human being regardless of their gender or their faith or their sexuality has to think twice about where they go" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris 2. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 3. medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma 4. Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital 5. there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'it divides British society into two tiers', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris 2. there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities 3. Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody 4. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 5. Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'it divides British society into two tiers', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April 2. Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position 3. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 4. Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody 5. somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody 2. somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save 3. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 4. Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital 5. it divides British society into two tiers Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "it divides British society into two tiers" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma 2. Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris 3. we have 30,000 in hospital 4. Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital 5. Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 2. the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend 3. Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody 4. medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma 5. there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'it divides British society into two tiers', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital 2. Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position 3. medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma 4. there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities 5. the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'we have 30,000 in hospital Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris Rachel Clarke was having the kinds of conversations Chris was having with nurses and doctors when his mum’s life was in the balance in April Rachel Clarke wouldn’t wish what his mum and what you as a family have gone through to anybody there seems to be an increasing, very vocal minority in Britain at the moment who seems to think that somehow if a human being in British society is above a certain age or has medical comorbidities medical comorbidities might be something as minor as eczema or asthma somehow their life is expendable, it doesn’t many anything, it is not worth fighting to save the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that Rachel Clarke,as a doctor, thinks that is a reprehensible position it divides British society into two tiers'. Given the premise: 'the tier of people we say are worth saving and the tier we can just do without and expend', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. Rachel Clarke is treating a lot of 30,000 people in hospital 2. we have 30,000 in hospital 3. Rachel Clarke is really, really sorry that Chris is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been through that 4. Rachel Clarke's heart goes out to Chris 5. it divides British society into two tiers Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "it divides British society into two tiers" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'grants are part of a broader package grants won’t be applicable to all pubs, but the majority is to most we can’t just focus on that £1,000 grant the UK prime minister was announcing £1000 grants as additional support and additional help Michelle Donelan hears what Tom Kerridge is saying about why pubs have been unfairly hit or targeted no politician wants to make the choice to unfairly target pubs Michelle Donelan didn’t enter politics to shut down pubs Michelle Donelan can make the choice to give more support to pubs the UK government are making decisions to target pubs in the first place and it is fundamentally for public health and safety and directed by the science coronavirus transmissional rates in hospitality was at 3 percent coronavirus transmissional rates were between 3 and 5 percent within hospitality 10 percent of the UK workforce is hospitality also employs over 3 million people we saw the “eat out to help out” schemes there were places where the infection rates did not rise during the "eat out to help out" schemes infection rate rises came when students were moving up and down'. Given the premise: 'infection rate rises came when students were moving up and down', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. coronavirus transmissional rates were between 3 and 5 percent within hospitality 2. Michelle Donelan hears what Tom Kerridge is saying about why pubs have been unfairly hit or targeted 3. Michelle Donelan can make the choice to give more support to pubs 4. we can’t just focus on that £1,000 grant 5. there were places where the infection rates did not rise during the "eat out to help out" schemes Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "there were places where the infection rates did not rise during the \"eat out to help out\" schemes" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'Heather McGregor sees young people all the time in her job as universities we have a responsibility to people between the ages of 17 and 24 or whatever to equip them to go out into the world the world is a tough, difficult place to be one of the most common things is anxiety and depression it is important that we equip our young people anxiety and depressions happens to lots of people Heather McGregor sets out to equip our young people with skills and capabilities all the time not just exam passes but to be able to deal with things Heather McGregor would just like to see Naomi Osaka play tennis Heather McGregor was really pleased that MasterCard, Naomi Osaka's big sponsor, went straight out behind her and said, you know, we back you 100 percent if anything was going to make that whole thing fall apart it was if Naomi Osaka's sponsors all turned their backs on her'. Given the premise: 'one of the most common things is anxiety and depression', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. not just exam passes but to be able to deal with things 2. Heather McGregor was really pleased that MasterCard, Naomi Osaka's big sponsor, went straight out behind her and said, you know, we back you 100 percent 3. Heather McGregor sees young people all the time in her job 4. Heather McGregor would just like to see Naomi Osaka play tennis 5. it is important that we equip our young people Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "it is important that we equip our young people" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'it is safe to go back to school, why isn't it safe for the house of Parliament or are our children test subjects the children are not test subjects from 2nd June, so that's a day later, these arrangements to vote remotely are being ended it is important that the national Parliament does its job scrutiniseing what the government is doing, properly asking questions we are asking them to come back on an interim basis for Parliament to vote to come become completely sets a poor example to the count reach let's remember Westminster was a hot bed for the spread of the virus a few weeks ago sometimes in Parliament it is a case was do as we say, not as we do things like bill and ledge late I have submit ease haven't been sitting of it was a really poor decision taken by MPs this weekend we are not asking schools to come fully back the let's get Parliament working and showing leadership doing what we are asking everybody else to do, which is go to work if you safely can it is not acceptable the premiere work place in the country isn´t taking a safety first approach'. Given the premise: 'it was a really poor decision taken by MPs', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. it is important that the national Parliament does its job scrutiniseing what the government is doing, properly asking questions 2. for Parliament to vote to come become completely sets a poor example to the count reach 3. sometimes in Parliament it is a case was do as we say, not as we do 4. things like bill and ledge late I have submit ease haven't been sitting of 5. this weekend we are not asking schools to come fully back Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "this weekend we are not asking schools to come fully back" ]	qt30
Please answer the following multiple-choice question: Question: A one-hop argument consists of a single inference step where a premise directly supports a conclusion. Consider the following argument: 'as far as business is concerned, this is the timeframe they desperately need businesses will be able to open up and operate normally again at xxx time the knowledge that there will be a vaccine by the spring is a game changer let’s say most vulnerable people and older people have been vaccinated by late spring Merryn Somerset is sure the entire economy could open up properly if businesses know that they can move out of this appalling cycle of not knowing what’s going to happen, hyper regulatory activity, lockdown this, curfew this, rules all over the place, up down, up down, not knowing where they are, they can start moving their businesses around to make them work again if businesses can look forward to a future that is linear, where things don’t change all the time, then they can start moving their businesses around to make them work again in that sense it is an absolutely game-changer for business the knowledge that there will be a vaccine by the spring is why you saw these astonishing moves in the stock market on Monday effectively all the companies geared into the return of normal life, airlines, pubs, etcetera, went completely all the stocks geared into the nightmare we live now, working from home, etcetera, fell significantly the economy will be able to look forward to something more linear, less alcoholic beverage'. Given the premise: 'let’s say most vulnerable people and older people have been vaccinated by late spring', your task is to identify which one of the following options represents the conclusion that is directly supported by the premise. Options: 1. if businesses can look forward to a future that is linear, where things don’t change all the time, then they can start moving their businesses around to make them work again 2. the knowledge that there will be a vaccine by the spring is why you saw these astonishing moves in the stock market on Monday 3. effectively all the companies geared into the return of normal life, airlines, pubs, etcetera, went completely 4. as far as business is concerned, this is the timeframe they desperately need 5. Merryn Somerset is sure the entire economy could open up properly Select the number representing the correct choice. Do not provide any explanations.	1H-C	[ "Merryn Somerset is sure the entire economy could open up properly" ]	qt30