{"kind":"task","effective_mode":"full","benchmark":{"kind":"benchmark","effective_mode":"full","slug":"mmlu","formal_name":"MMLU","introduction":"MMLU asks four-way multiple-choice questions across 57 subjects, from elementary material to professional-level examinations. Since 2020 it has been the most widely cited single reference point for general capability.","introduction_ja":"","introduction_en":"","category":"Category not supplied","task_count":null,"acquisition_status":"Acquisition status not supplied","official_url":"https://github.com/hendrycks/test","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":"a6dff86d-b601-5805-84d3-adf24d7811a1","task_key":"all--test--a6dff86d-b601-5805-84d3-adf24d7811a1","task_revision_id":"1","upstream_id":"","short_description":"A man who owned a haberdashery placed an order by telephone from a wholesale…","config":"all","split":"test","body":"{\"choices\":\"[\\\"Yes, because the statute was not satisfied by the supplier's tender of the goods, which were rejected by the man, and the supplier did not rely on the oral agreement other than by attempting delivery.\\\", \\\"Yes, because the agreed price for three dozen socks was over $500, and the supplier's written memo incorrectly stated the quantity of goods ordered.\\\", \\\"No, because the supplier's written memo was sufficient to satisf' the statute as against the supplier, and the man, having reason to know of the memo's contents, failed to give notice of objection within 10 days of receipt.\\\", \\\"No, because the supplier's written memo operated as an acceptance, with proposals for additional terms that became part of the contract after the man failed to object to such additional terms within a reasonable time.\\\"]\",\"question\":\"A man who owned a haberdashery placed an order by telephone from a wholesale supplier of cashmere and wool clothing, for \\\"triple-dozen purple cashmere socks, size 10 €”13 at current resale price. \\\" The supplier's sales agent orally accepted the order at the agreed price of $250 per dozen. In accordance with the supplier's customary business practice, the sales agent then mailed the following confirmation letter, which he signed and dated:\\\"As per your telephone order, this letter serves to confirm the purchase of 36 dozen cashmere socks, color purple, size 10 €”13, at the agreed price of $250 per dozen. Total sales price: $9,000. \\\"This letter was received by the man, who briefly glanced at it but failed to notice the \\\"36 dozen\\\" wording or the total price. The man placed the letter in his files and did not respond to it. Three weeks later, the supplier tendered 36 dozen purple cashmere socks, which the man rejected on the grounds that he had ordered only three dozen. The supplier resold the same purple cashmere socks to another buyer for a total price of $8,000. The supplier sued the man for the $1,000 difference. If the man pleads the statute of frauds as a defense, will such a defense be successful?\",\"subject\":\"professional_law\"}","display_format":"text","language":"","answer_status":"published","assets":[],"source_url":"https://github.com/hendrycks/test","history":"initial import","indexing_mode":"index","subproblems":[],"grids":[]}