Problem: What I've done is, it says that there's no extraneous unpublished material questioning. That's the clarity that I need. And then, quite frankly, my mindset is, if the issue of the defendants is that we were biased in our reporting because we either misquoted somebody or whatever, well, this isn't a jury trial.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "There are about 5 defendants in this case."? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A: It's impossible to say


Q: Prime Minister Trudeau's favorite province is Alberta.
Senators Joyal and De Ban know that, when Prime Minister Trudeau, thinking he had detected agreement among the provinces, even though Quebec was not a party, said that if he could get the support of the provinces and the members, he would not let the Senate prevent him from concluding an agreement.
OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
A: It's impossible to say


Let me tell you where the biggest discrimination comes. In public education when we just move children through the schools. My friend, Phyllis Hunter, is here. She had one of the greatest lines of all lines. She said, reading is the new civil right. She's right.
Phyllis Hunter has talked to bill OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
A: It's impossible to say


input hypothesis: Anxious kittens don't have digestive problems.
Context: How to know if a kitten is stressed<br>Notice any digestive problems. Stress and anxiety in a kitten can lead to digestive issues. Diarrhea and constipation are common reactions to stress.
OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
true or false: No


Context:
Zoo<br>When we were in Chicago my friends and I went to the zoo. We spent the whole day there, observing the animals. The animals in the zoo appeared to be happy enough. However, by the end of the day my friend was very sad. She realized that seeing caged animals made her depressed.
Hypothesis: The monkeys in the zoo enjoy eating bananas OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No
It's impossible to say


Problem: Justice, we do not believe that the very first act extended terms at all. Speaking technically, which for a lawyer means speaking accurately, the 1790 act did not extend a Federal term. The 1790 act granted a term for works that already existed in precisely the pattern that the English parliament had done in the Statute of Anne in 1710, and that the English parliament did with monopolies, general monopolies in the statute.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "Statute of Anne was in the 21st century"? OPTIONS:
- Yes
- It's impossible to say
- No

A: