This task is about identifying short paraphrases of text. You are shown two phrases and asked to indicate (on a scale of 1 to 5) how equivalent they are in meaning.

Sometimes this may be difficult to judge because the two phrases are provided without context . For two phrases to get a 5, they should have equivalent meaning and also function similarly in many contexts you can think of.

Note all words have been converted to lowercase .

Below is the scale. Please read it carefully as answers that do not adhere to it may be rejected.

5: The two phrases have equivalent meaning in some context. This means they have the same tense and the use of pronouns in the phrases is consistent.

Examples:

Phrase 1	Phrase 2
have to be taken into account	must be considered
on matters relating to	on the issues of
allow me to begin by	firstly i would like to

3: The two phrases are not equivalent in any context, but have overlap in meaning.

Examples:

Phrase 1	Phrase 2
shall be entitled	the court shall have the right
determine what	the purpose of determining which member
go ahead , it 's okay	you gonna be all right

1: The phrases are unrelated, they contradict each other, they differ in a pronoun ("he" vs "it"), or in tense ("says" vs "said").

Examples:

Phrase 1	Phrase 2	Reason
sit can be purchased	members of the public are welcome	unrelated
the united states would	us would not	contradiction (negation)
are the principal	were the primary	tenses do not match
he 'll be all right	you 're going to be okay	pronouns inconsistent