Problem: An Oconee trial ended yesterday with guilty verdicts and a sentence that sends a Westminster man to prison for one year. The General Sessions jury found Sonny Sloan Peay guilty of resisting arrest and possession of meth first offense. Judge Sprouse ordered a one-year term for resisting arrest and sentenced the 51-year old Peay to three years suspended to five years probation for meth possession. Testifying in his own defense, Peay accused a Westminster police officer of planting the drug on his possession. VK Facebook Twitter Google+

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "A Westminster man was sent to prison due to yesterday's trial veredict"?

A: Yes


Problem: As you see, I'm far more genial than I express in writing. What I invited by that opinion, though, was that I would be available -- and I believe in an issue that is as important to the reporters and to you, as their counsel, as this, it is appropriate for you to stop a deposition on a question like that, instruct your witness not to answer, and allow the Court to rule on it. I was inviting you to do that. Now, I understand what your reasons are for not doing that, and I think you can do that.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "Your witness is instructed not to answer and she must let the court rule."?

A: Yes


Problem: "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." The White House is a hot kitchen. One of our presidential candidates is clearly incapable of taking any heat. The other one has endured attack after politically motivated attack without losing her composure. Enough said.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "There are no presidential candidates."?

A:
No