nirantk/nli-triplets · Datasets at Hugging Face

anchor stringlengths 5 1.82k	entailment stringlengths 1 351	contradiction stringlengths 1 295	metadata dict
It now comes with two or three mini-essays a week by William Saletan on the order of his Frame Game shrewd analysis of how an issue is being framed by the contending interests and who is winning the frame game.	It comes with a few essays a week.	It comes without an essay at all.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Testers are as vain about finding bugs as I am about squashing them, hence the excessive pride of my tester who uncovered the year 4500 bug.	My tester was proud of uncovering the year 4500 bug.	My tester was proud of being handsome.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Using a more sophisticated version of the same techniques, De Long and Lang concluded that some of the 78 confirmed hypotheses might be true, but probably not more than about a third of them.	De Long and Lang said there were a lot of hypotheses that might be accurate.	De Long and Lang said none of the hypotheses that might be accurate.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
analysis i don't i don't know how they fixed the problem but they're uh you know the whole theme of of what they were doing was was to measure and record and and uh reduce down time	I don't know how they fixed the problem, but they were focused on measuring and recording and reducing down time.	They weren't able to fix the problem.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
(The magazine revised its methodology to reward high spending on instruction.)	The magazine changed its methodology.	The magazine kept its methodology the same.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
By this they mean that readers compare their own observations, experience, and belief to the narrative and regard the parts of the investigation that are consistent with these as confirmed.	Readers compare subjective opinions to the narrative.	Readers only work with objective matters in comparing to the narrative.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
I didn't entirely agree with that assessment.	I did not agree with the assessment.	I wholeheartedly agreed with the results.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
With regard to reporting, the guidelines emphasize constraints on the study, arguments for and against various resolutions of the issues, and the role of judgment in reaching conclusions.	The guidelines emphasize a few factors that are used in reporting.	The role of judgement is excluded in the reporting guidelines.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
After receiving agency comments, GAO considers their substance, revises the draft report as appropriate, and indicates in the issued report whether the agency agreed or disagreed with GAO's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.	GAO considers the substance of the comments and then changes the report.	GAO will not consider the substance of the comments or change the report.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Issues in Participant A Text and Reader.	issues in individual	issues in groups	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Although room exists for considerable judgment in determining the content of reports, those that are fact-based, but still concise, are likely to achieve greater results.	Reports that are fact-based are more likely to achieve great results.	Reports that are not fact-based are more likely to achieve great results.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
For measuring outcomes for research and development programs, results may be reported by a narrative discussion of the major results achieved by the program during the year.	Narrative discussion is one means of reporting results.	Narrative discussion can't be used to report results with respect to the measurement of outcomes in research and development.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Qualitative Evaluation	A type of evaluation.	Quantitative Revaluation	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Ask Jeeves isn't perfect; in fact, it often exhibits a grasp of reality that falls somewhere between a database and the Magic 8-Ball.	I am aware of Ask Jeeves's frequent unreliability.	I think Ask Jeeves is perfect and very reliable.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
evaluator collects more information, as required by the specifications from the think cycle.	As per requirement by the details from the think cycle, evaluator gathers more data and facts.	Evaluator does not collect information anymore, as directed by the think cycle.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Summary of Major Sections	Summary of important sections	Summary of insignificant sections	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Participants cited accounting for pensions, postemployment benefits, and pro-forma financial statements as examples of accounting treatments that need attention before building on any new reporting requirements.	Participants cited accounting for pensions	Participants stopped cited accounting for pensions	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Lewy, Arieh, and Marvin, Alkin, The Impact of a Major National Evaluation Israel's Van Leer Report.	Lewy, Arieh, and Marvin collaborated on a report about the impact of a major national evaluation.	Major national evaluation reports have no impact at all.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
8.43 Reported evidence should demonstrate the correctness and reasonableness of the matters reported.	The evidence showcases truthful matters.	Reported evidence should demonstrate falsehoods of the matters reported.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Discussed below are two methods of analysis currently under review to accomplish these goals.	In order to accomplish these goals, the methods of analysis are reviewed.	All methods of analysis are the same and are equally effective in accomplishing the goals.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Hargarten observed that the impediments to publishing seem to be lessening, and that the work of Cherpitel and others is vital.	Hargarten observed the work of Cherpitel and others is vital.	Hargarten observed the work of Cherpitel and others is useless.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The research questions are how to determine which patients need maintenance activities, what types of activities they need, and when or how often they are needed.	In order to determine which patients require maintenance activities the research questions are used.	In order to determine which patients need help, nurses wait until they are asked.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
On the basis of their comments and our continuing reviews of leading organizations, we consolidated and refined the list of practices to those presented in this guide.	We trimmed and put our lists together.	We expanded our lists to make this guide more comprehensive.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
One authority notes that publication biases may favor programs that seem to work, which could lead to a misleadingly positive view (Berger, 1983).	The view can be illusively positive because of a publication bias towards working programs.	Publication biases tend to favor programs that do not work, which skews the view negatively.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
These differences, and their impact on the framework developed in this guide, will be discussed in the aUsing this Guide- section.	The Using this Guide section explains the differences.	The differences are explained in the Framework Qualifications section.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
9.5 CHOICE OF ANALYSIS	you must choose an analysis.	there is no choice to be made for the analysis	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In this paper, we have taken positions on many issues, expecting to revise these as experience accumulates and as we receive reactions from evaluators and researchers.	Positions are expected to be changed over time.	Any person is qualified to give reactions.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The study was first conducted in 1987.	1987 was the first year in which the study was conducted.	1990 was the first year in which the study was conducted.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
He added that the literature shows client outcomes and cost-benefits are improved by either research follow-up or a brief monitoring phone call.	The literature shows how client outcomes can be improved.	The literature shows that client outcomes are always made worse.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Thus, before we turn to the data, I would like to review some highlights related to this study.	There are highlights in relation to the study that deserved a review.	There were no highlights to discuss with this study.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Neither does jumping to conclusions.	You shouldn't jump to conclusions.	Jumping to conclusions is the best way to get information.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
These reports detail how much lobbyists are paid to work on a particular issue and in theory what, who, and how they lobby.	The lobbyists are paid for a specific issue.	The lobbyists just work on what they feel is important.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Thus, a study of how a group is organized economically might begin with	Studies about the economic organization of groups have a certain something it might begin with.	It is not predictable about what studies begin with regarding economic organization of groups.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The results have been striking.	There have been striking results.	There has been no results collected to date.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
For readers with an interest in further information, but limited time, a few key references are starred (*).	a few key references are starred.	No key references are starred for the reader.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
(Appendix II provides more details on the objectives, scope, and methodology of our work.)	There is an appendix with all of the details of our work.	There is nothing included that will give any details of the work.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Of course, the Direct Hit study doesn't mean that no one is going to the Gore site.	Some people will go to the Gore site.	The Gore site is off limits to anyone in the Direct Hit study.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Thank you for William Saletan's brilliant analysis () of the war.	There was an excellent analysis of the war provided by William Saletan.	William Saletan analysis of the war was unfounded and lacking in rigor.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
I'm meant to analyze each question and extract a general ethical principle, a rule--i.e.	I meant to analyze the questions and form general principals.	I didn't analyze anything, I just made random observations.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In addition, this guidance discusses suggested language-appropriate under different circumstances-for reporting the results of your assessment.	The results should be given in a language that is appropriate.	No appropriate language is needed for reporting results of an assessment.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
(In column 1, compare line 2 and line 5).	Line 2 and line 5 must be compared in column 1.	Line 3 and line 5 must be compared in column 6.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Cherpitel has analyzed the sensitivity of each of the RAPS4 questions and sequenced them from most to least sensitive for most efficient use.	RAPS4 are sequenced by sensitivity.	Cherpital analyzed the frequency of RAPS4 questions.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
This is stuff that defies analysis.	This type of stuff defies analysis.	This stuff doesn't defy analysis.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Each standard is summarized briefly in a box followed by a detailed explanation of the standard.	Next to the summary box is a detailed explanation of the standard.	The explanation of the standard is on a separate page than the summary.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Not surprisingly, analysis has become a major methodological concern, and more structured and perhaps more efficient approaches to analysis have been developed.	Analysis is a big concern.	Analysis is not abig concern.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
We provided additional references in some areas to clarify our position.	Additional references in order to clarify our position have been provided.	No additional references were provided.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
um-hum you you don't think that they went and did a uh what is it an Ishihara uh quality analysis	You don't think they ended up doing a quality analysis, do you?	You don't think they ran a marathon, do you?	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Conclusions	Conclusions	Introductions	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
This section summarizes the results of our research and case study work.	The results of our research and case study work are summarized in this section.	This section doesn't summarize the results of our research and case study work.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
We would also like to thank the individuals who provided helpful comments on the exposure draft of this guide.	The exposure draft of the guide received helpful comments.	No comments were made o the exposure draft of the guide.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The rapid spread of inquiry from an examination of the technology to an investigation of decisionmaking on that flight, to inquiry about NASA management as it affected the Challenger disaster generally, is what taking the context into account means.	Examining NASA's management during the disaster that occurred on the Challenger is all a part of making a contextual analysis of what happened.	The causes of the Challenger disaster really don't require a higher level of investigating and inquiry.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
This was the 10 th study since 1975--and all studies showed similar problems.	All of the 10 studies since 1975, identified similar issues.	The results of the 9th study were vastly different from the rest.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Blow off the brief reviews.	Ignore the brief reviews.	Pay attention to the brief reviews.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Longabaugh wondered whether the intended consumers of the document would include government officials, researchers, practitioners, and academicians.	Longabaugh wondered whether researchers were among the intended consumers.	Longabaugh did not think anything about the intended customers.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Submitting this work helps educate editors and reviewers.	This work is useful for editors and reviewers.	This work is not helpful to the editors or the reviewers.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In this third report, we have decided to present our work to you in a fashion slightly different from the format we have used in the past two reports.	This report will be presented differently than the last two.	This report will be presented the same way as the last two reports.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Comment on Participant Observation and A Comparison.	Discuss observation and comparison on participants.	Remain silent on participant observation and comparison.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Indicators of significance and/or use to consider include	There are indicators of significance or use that should be considered.	There are indicators of abuse that should be considered.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Some of these additional challenges are described in the final section of this guide.	The final portion of the guide describes some of the additional challenges.	The final portion of the guide describes none of the additional challenges.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The analyst searches for clusters or paths in the data, using verbal notes and graphic aids, reviewing field data and other records of observations, until a pattern is evident.	The analyst looks for patterns in the data.	The analyst looks for hard numbers, not patterns.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
REPORT CONTENTS	contents of the report	summary of the report	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In this view, the two study types could be measuring the same underlying relationship.	The two study types could measure the same relationship.	Only one study type measures the relationship.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Timing the Assessment	Timing the Evaluation	Timing the Book	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In a strong chain of evidence, an independent second evaluator could follow the first evaluator from original observations, the raw or unreduced data, through all the steps of data aggregation and analysis, and conclude that the first evaluator's findings were justified by the evidence and fairly represented it.	The first evaluator can be followed by a second evaluator.	The original observations can't be used by the second evaluator.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
We also discussed assessment techniques with experts at NIST.	The experts at NIST were discussing the assessment techniques with us.	There are no experts in assessment techniques at the NIST.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
2) The study is flawed because it didn't include men.	The study did not include men, therefore it is flawed.	The study is flawed because it included men.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
well do you keep up with the statistical stuff	Are you updated with the figures?	Did you study statistics before?	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Each topical section will be identified by an alpha-numeric code (for example, P10 for Pensions), with numbers selected to allow addition of future topics.	A code using numbers and letters will be used to identify each section.	The sections will each have a four digit number assigned for identification.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Open-Ended Interview	Interview that is open-ended	Interview follows a strict format	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
I'll fill you in on anything you need to know before you're assigned.	I'll give you the information before you get your assignment.	I'll wait until you are assigned before we begin.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
But the spokesman said the campaign had not yet formulated a response to candidate Bill Bradley's challenge that Gore submit the paperback to an independent lab for testing.	Bill Bradley challenged the fact that Gore submitted the paperback to a lab.	Gore's submission of a paperback to an independent lab was unquestioned.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
But the Lojack research is in many ways more informative, because the authors were able to do a thorough job of distinguishing between benefits to the purchaser of a Lojack and benefits to the community at large.	The authors of the Lojack research did a thorough job.	The authors of the Lojack research did a crappy job.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
In commenting on a draft of this report, the participants of our study agreed with the critical success factors and challenges that we identified.	The participants commented on a draft of this report.	Nobody has had anything to say about the draft of this report.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Figure 4: The First Steps of the Assessment	Figure 4: The 1st Steps of The Assessment	Figure 3: The Second Steps of The Assessment	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Corroborating Evidence You should consider the extent to which corroborating evidence is likely to exist and will independently support your findings, conclusions, or recommendations.	The existence of corroborating evidence and its ability to offer independent support for your suggestions, findings, and conclusions is something that you want to consider.	Corroborating evidence isn't something you should waste your time pursuing.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The information on the three documents had to be of sufficient detail to allow an effective comparison to occur.	There is more than enough details provided in the documents to make comparisons.	We only have one document that you may reference.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Reporting methods have changed.	Reporting methods are different	Reporting methods are the same	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The final reports of some non-GAO case studies show little or no resemblance between the final questions and those in the approved study proposal, and a number of issues about this have not been resolved.	The final reports show little resemblance between the final questions and those in the approved study proposals.	The final reports show lots of resemblance between the final questions and those in the approved study proposals.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Participants raised questions about the gaps in reporting of intangibles.	The participants had questions about the gaps in the report	Participants didn't care that there were gaps in the reporting	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Next, references to relevant sections within Volume I and to Volume II are provided.	The first and second volumes and citations to their relevant sections are provided.	Section citations cannot be found within the first and second volumes.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Gentilello remarked that the attitudes of reviewers for surgical journals vary considerably.	It was noted that the reviewers attitudes varied considerably.	Gentilello did not remark about anything.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
As new products with recommendations are released, their recommendations are incorporated into the database.	Recommendations are included in the database as they are released with new products.	Recommendations are added to the database at leisure.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Bloor, M. On the Analysis of Observational A Discussion of the Worth and Use of Inductive Techniques and Respondent Validation.	Bloor, M. does Analysis of Observational Discussion.	Bloor, M. has never done any analysis in his life.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
It's instructive to contrast this with the approach of the leading British papers.	Comparing to British papers is quite difficult at this point in time.	The two approached were strikingly one in the same.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
We still need to find the most accurate test for ED use.	The test that is most accurate for ED use is not found yet.	The most accurate test is already known and in use.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Finally, it provides detailed descriptions of all the stages of the assessment, as well as a glossary of technical terms used (see p.	At last, every single stage of the assessment is listed in great details.	It's been 10 years and they still won't put detailed descriptions on there.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
informative and interesting and uh i was real impressed at how ABC handled uh translating the war for children	I had a favorable impression of ABC's handling of the translation.	I was disappointed with what I thought was a poor presentation.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Reports began arriving late this year and are being reviewed	Reports are being reviewed late this year.	There were no reports this year at all.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
result in 11 different symptom clusters, each describing a type of LRS.	11 different symptom clusters was the result.	There were 21 different cluster symptoms altogether.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
This analysis is far from exhaustive, and I know from much recent experience that Slate readers will forcefully call my attention to scenarios I've failed to consider.	This analysis is not exhaustive.	This analysis is exhaustive.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Section Conclusion.	The section is concluded.	The section is started.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Within the cornerstone of results-oriented	In the cornerstone of results-oriented	In the cornerstone of cookbooks	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
As a result, these simulation results should not be compared directly to those in our earlier reports.	These simulations should not be directly compared to other reports.	There has only been one set of reports completed.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
we will let them draw their own conclusions	we won't draw conclusions for them.	We will draw conclusions for them.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
However, a Harvard study showed that the covering residents made serious mistakes six times more often than even fatigued residents.	Residents covering for others made more serious mistakes than fatigued residents.	Covering residents made less mistakes as to not disappoint those they were covering for.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
The challenge for evaluators is how to use those aspects of an anecdote that are effective for our work-the immediacy, the convincingness, the attention-getting quality-and, at the same time, fulfill other informational requirements for our jobs, such as generalizability and reliability.	Evaluators are challenged with the tasks of using personal stories.	Evaluators often use anecdotes in decisions because it is easy.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
Some new detail about Bush's education policy, by contrast, might or might not make the paper.	A new detail on Bush's education policy may be in the paper.	Bush's education policy will definitely be in the paper.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
study methods, and that they have addressed related issues in ways that seem impartial and are intended to reduce bias, the greater confidence the reader can have in the quality of the work.	They have addressed related issues in ways that seem impartial.	They don't address related issues.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
I'd be very surprised if the results were substantially different.	To my knowledge the results should be normal.	I expect the results to be substantially different.	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }
( Slate 's rounds up overseas reactions to the hijacking, and outlines the history of the Kashmir conflict.)	They outline the history of the Kashmir conflict	They outline the history of the African conflict	{ "objective": { "paired": [ [ "anchor", "entailment" ] ], "self": [], "triplet": [ [ "anchor", "entailment", "contradiction" ] ] }, "topic": "Appendix" }

It now comes with two or three mini-essays a week by William Saletan on the order of his Frame Game shrewd analysis of how an issue is being framed by the contending interests and who is winning the frame game.

It comes with a few essays a week.

It comes without an essay at all.