Teacher: The input is taken from a negotiation between two participants who take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for Food, Water, and Firewood packages, based on their individual preferences and requirements. Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output Yes if the utterance contains the other-need strategy, otherwise output No. other-need is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used when the participants discuss a need for someone else rather than themselves. For instance, describing the need for firewood to keep the kids warm.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
Context: 'I was hoping to get alot of water as well, would you be ok with me getting two waters and three firewoods if you get all the food and one water?' 'Hmm, that's not favorable for me going by the volume of items left in my arsenal. Water is more of a higher priority than food. So, I would exchange 1 pack of food for an additional water' 'So that way you would get two waters and two foods? Those are my priorities as well but i would be ok with it since that way i would get five items and you would get only four.'
Utterance: 'Those are your priorities?? Then that's not fair for you. Then I take 2 water, 1 firewood and 1 food. This is the lowest I can offer'
Solution: No
Reason: This is correct. The participant does not create a specific need for anybody.

Now, solve this instance: Context: 'ohh that's would be really difficult.However we can still sort things out' 'That is great to hear!🙂 How about you take 2 food, 2 water and 0 firewood? What do you think?' 'uhm.how about i have 3 water 2 foods and zero firewood?'
Utterance: 'Are you willing to budge on one water for me? I have 5 people in my group and they really could use one package of water. It is hot out nowadays. '
Student:
Yes