{"kind":"task","effective_mode":"full","benchmark":{"kind":"benchmark","effective_mode":"full","slug":"mmlu-pro","formal_name":"MMLU-Pro","introduction":"MMLU-Pro rebuilds MMLU with ten answer options instead of four and removes items that no longer separate models. Questions span fourteen academic and professional subjects.","introduction_ja":"","introduction_en":"","category":"Category not supplied","task_count":null,"acquisition_status":"Acquisition status not supplied","official_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/TIGER-Lab/MMLU-Pro","indexing_mode":"index","profile":{"resources":[],"task_format":"","scoring":"","metric":"","size":"","answer_access":"","license":"","citation":"","maintainer":"","released":"","why_hard":"","related":[],"history":"","construction":"","limitations":"","saturation":"","scores":[]}},"task_id":"8360f6cf-2348-528f-a8e7-c4f4b60e9112","task_key":"default--test--1635","task_revision_id":"1","upstream_id":"1635","short_description":"A man was the owner of the newly constructed hotel in a city. On March 15, the…","config":"default","split":"test","body":"{\"category\":\"law\",\"options\":\"[\\\"The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man failed to pay for the fire extinguishers within the specified 90 days.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man's memo was inconsistent with the terms of the salesperson's oral offer.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man's memo was not sufficient to indicate that a contract was formed.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is not valid, because the salesperson has breached the contract by failing to deliver the fire extinguishers on the agreed date.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is not valid, because the man's memo is considered a written contract under the UCC.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man's memo did not include a signature, which is required for a contract to be valid under the UCC.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is not valid, because under the UCC the statute of frauds is not applicable in agreements between merchants.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is not valid, because the man accepted the offer before the salesperson decided to terminate it.\\\", \\\"The salesperson's defense is not valid, because the salesperson failed to respond to the man's memo within a reasonable period of time.\\\"]\",\"question\":\"A man was the owner of the newly constructed hotel in a city. On March 15, the man received a telephone call from a salesperson who was a distributor of hotel equipment. The salesperson offered to sell the man 1,000 fire extinguishers for his hotel. The salesperson told the man that the cost of the fire extinguishers would be $35,000 (or $35 apiece), payable 90 days after delivery. The salesperson promised to have the fire extinguishers installed no later than April 15. On March 16, the man telephoned the salesperson and accepted the offer. The following day, the man mailed the following memo to the salesperson:\\\"Please be advised that I shall take a 15 percent discount for cash payment seven days after installation. \\\" The salesperson received the man's correspondence on March 20. On April 1, the salesperson sent a telegram to the man, stating: \\\"It's apparent we don't have an enforceable contract in effect. I will not be delivering the fire extinguishers on April 15 or any other time. \\\"The man brings suit against the salesperson for breach of contract. The salesperson asserts the defense of the statute of frauds under the UCC. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the salesperson's defenses?\",\"src\":\"ori_mmlu-professional_law\"}","display_format":"text","language":"","answer_status":"published","assets":[],"source_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/TIGER-Lab/MMLU-Pro","history":"initial import","indexing_mode":"index","subproblems":[],"grids":[]}