{"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":"9a1b6e2c-1a63-5a7a-9d28-c8fcc7e0038d","task_key":"default--test--1745","task_revision_id":"1","upstream_id":"1745","short_description":"A state has recently enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of computer printer…","config":"default","split":"test","body":"{\"category\":\"law\",\"options\":\"['Refuse to review this case on the merits because there is an adequate and independent state ground for the decision rendered below.', 'Affirm the decision on the merits with respect to the federal constitutional issue, but reverse the decision with respect to the state constitutional issue.', 'Reverse the decision on the merits with respect to the state constitutional issue because the federal constitutional holding rendered below makes such a state constitutional decision unnecessary.', \\\"Refuse to review the case because the state Supreme Court's decision does not conflict with any federal law or constitutional provision.\\\", 'Affirm the decision on the merits with respect to the federal constitutional issue and abstain from reviewing the state constitutional issue.', 'Reverse the decision because the law does not retroactively impair the ability of plastic bag packagers to honor their existing contracts for the sale of ink cartridges packaged in plastic bags.', 'Affirm the decision on the merits with respect to the state constitutional issue and abstain from reviewing the federal constitutional issue.', 'Affirm the decision on the merits with respect to both the federal and state constitutional issues because the state constitution must substantially conform with the federal constitution on this issue.', 'Reverse the decision on the grounds that the state law does not violate the contracts clause of the federal Constitution.', 'Reverse the decision because the state law is a reasonable regulation of commerce and does not violate the contracts clauses of the federal and state constitutions.']\",\"question\":\"A state has recently enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of computer printer ink cartridges in plastic bags. In accordance with the new law, all ink cartridges within the state must be sold in paper cartons that are recyclable. Before the passage of the law, approximately 28% of all ink cartridges used in the state was packaged in plastic bags. Of that total, 75% of the ink cartridges was packaged outside the state, while 25% was packaged by companies in-state. The legislature passed the bill at the strong urging of the paper industry. It was estimated that one paper company alone spent over $5,000,000 in its lobbying campaign for the passage of the bill. Ironically, the new law even received strong support from environmentalists who believed that recyclable paper would help prevent littering. Assume that the state Supreme Court adjudges the law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the contracts clauses of both the federal and the state Constitutions. The contracts clause of the state Constitution is similar to the one in the federal Constitution. The court so held because, in its judgment, the statute retroactively impairs the ability of plastic bag packagers to honor their existing contracts for the sale of ink cartridges packaged in plastic bags. The state attorney general now seeks review of this decision in the U. S. Supreme Court. How should the U. S. Supreme Court rule on this case?\",\"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":[]}