[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: popular
Target surface form: popular
Context:
Tuesday's rout of a GOP congressional hopeful in a Mississippi district that hasn't backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson is another reminder that, at least at the federal level, political "ticket splitting "has been on the rise over the past half century. In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the <t>popular</t> vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=popular%3:00:00:: | definition=regarded with great favor, approval, or affection especially by the general public | examples=a popular tourist attraction; a popular girl
2. sense_key=popular%5:00:00:democratic:00 | definition=carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large | examples=the popular vote; popular representation
3. sense_key=popular%5:00:01:common:01 | definition=representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large | synonyms=democratic | examples=democratic art forms; a democratic or popular movement
4. sense_key=popular%5:00:00:nonclassical:00 | definition=(of music or art) new and of general appeal (especially among young people) | synonyms=pop

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: "popular"
    *   Target surface form: "popular"
    *   Context: "...the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major-party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the <t>popular</t> vote for Congress."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `popular%3:00:00::`: regarded with great favor, approval, or affection (e.g., popular tourist attraction).
        2.  `popular%5:00:00:democratic:00`: carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large (e.g., the popular vote).
        3.  `popular%5:00:01:common:01`: representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large (e.g., democratic art forms).
        4.  `popular%5:00:00:nonclassical:00`: (of music or art) new and of general appeal (e.g., pop music).

    *   The phrase is "the popular vote for Congress".
    *   In political science and elections, "popular vote" refers to the total number of individual votes cast by the general public, as opposed to the Electoral College or other indirect methods.

    *   Sense 1: "regarded with great favor" - Incorrect. The vote isn't "liked"; it's the count of votes.
    *   Sense 2: "carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large" - Example: "the popular vote". This matches perfectly.
    *   Sense 3: "representing or appealing to... the people at large" - This is more about the *nature* of a movement or art form.
    *   Sense 4: "new and of general appeal (music/art)" - Incorrect.

    *   The context explicitly uses the term "popular vote".
    *   Sense 2's definition ("carried on by or for the people") and example ("the popular vote") align exactly with the usage in the text.


attempt_kind: initial

status: success

[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: vote
Target surface form: vote
Context:
Tuesday's rout of a GOP congressional hopeful in a Mississippi district that hasn't backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson is another reminder that, at least at the federal level, political "ticket splitting "has been on the rise over the past half century. In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular <t>vote</t> for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=vote%1:04:00:: | definition=a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative | synonyms=ballot, voting, balloting | examples=there were only 17 votes in favor of the motion; they allowed just one vote per person
2. sense_key=vote%1:04:01:: | definition=the opinion of a group as determined by voting | examples=they put the question to a vote
3. sense_key=vote%1:07:00:: | definition=a legal right guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the US Constitution; guaranteed to women by the 19th amendment | synonyms=right to vote, suffrage | examples=American women got the vote in 1920
4. sense_key=vote%1:14:00:: | definition=a body of voters who have the same interests | examples=he failed to get the Black vote
5. sense_key=vote%1:09:00:: | definition=the total number of voters who participated | synonyms=voter turnout | examples=they are expecting a large vote

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

raw_output:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

finish_reason: stop

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

role: assistant

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `vote`
    *   Target surface form: `vote`
    *   Context: "...the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major-party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular <t>vote</t> for Congress."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `vote%1:04:00`: a choice made by counting people in favor (ballot, voting).
        2.  `vote%1:04:01`: the opinion of a group as determined by voting.
        3.  `vote%1:07:00`: a legal right (suffrage).
        4.  `vote%1:14:00`: a body of voters with same interests (e.g., "the Black vote").
        5.  `vote%1:09:00`: the total number of voters who participated (voter turnout).

    *   The phrase is "the popular vote for Congress".
    *   It is compared to "the major-party popular vote for president".
    *   "Popular vote" refers to the total count of individual votes cast for a candidate or party, as opposed to the Electoral College or the number of seats won.
    *   In this context, "popular vote" refers to the aggregate of individual choices (ballots) cast.

    *   Sense 1: "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative" (ballot, voting, balloting). This fits the idea of the "popular vote" (the sum of individual choices).
    *   Sense 2: "the opinion of a group as determined by voting". This is more about the *result* or the *act* of putting a question to a vote.
    *   Sense 3: "a legal right" (suffrage). Not applicable here.
    *   Sense 4: "a body of voters who have the same interests". Not applicable here (it's not "the youth vote" or "the rural vote").
    *   Sense 5: "the total number of voters who participated" (voter turnout). "Popular vote" isn't just turnout; it's the distribution of those votes among candidates.

    *   "Popular vote" is the total number of individual votes cast for a candidate.
    *   Sense 1 describes "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative". While often used for a single instance (e.g., "there were only 17 votes"), in the collective sense ("the popular vote"), it refers to the aggregate of these choices.
    *   Let's re-evaluate Sense 5: "the total number of voters who participated". If the text says "the GOP captured a greater percentage of the popular vote", it means they got a percentage of the total votes cast. This is very close to Sense 5, but Sense 5 is specifically "voter turnout".
    *   Wait, "popular vote" usually means the total count of votes cast for a specific candidate/party relative to the total.
    *   Let's look at Sense 1 again: "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative".
    *   Let's look at Sense 4: "a body of voters who have the same interests". No.
    *   Let's look at Sense 2: "the opinion of a group as determined by voting". No.

    *   "Popular vote" is a standard term. In "percentage of the popular vote", "vote" refers to the collective set of ballots cast.
    *   Sense 1: "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative".
    *   Sense 5: "the total number of voters who participated".
    *   If the GOP captured 40% of the popular vote, they captured 40% of the total votes cast.
    *   Is "popular vote" the *turnout* (Sense 5) or the *aggregate of choices* (Sense 1)?
    *   Turnout is how many people showed up. The "popular vote" is the total count of votes cast, which is then divided among candidates.
    *   Sense 1's synonyms are "ballot, voting, balloting". "The popular vote" is essentially the total "balloting".

    *   Sense 1: "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative"
    *   Sense 5: "the total number of voters who participated" (voter turnout)
    *   In "percentage of the popular vote", the "vote" is the total pool of ballots.
    *   If I say "the popular vote was 60 million", that's turnout (Sense 5).
    *   If I say "the popular vote went to Candidate X", that's the result of the counting (Sense 1).
    *   "The GOP captured a greater percentage of the... popular vote" means they got a percentage of the total ballots cast.
    *   Comparing Sense 1 and Sense 5: Sense 1 is about the *choice/ballot* itself. Sense 5 is about the *number of people* who voted.
    *   "Popular vote" in political science refers to the total number of votes cast for a candidate. This aligns better with the aggregate of individual choices (Sense 1) than with the mere act of turnout (Sense 5).

    *   Sense 1: "a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative"
    *   Example: "there were only 17 votes in favor of the motion"
    *   "Popular vote" is the sum of these individual "votes".

    *   Sense 5: "the total number of voters who participated"
    *   Example: "they are expecting a large vote"
    *   This is specifically turnout. "The GOP captured a percentage of the popular vote" is not about how many people showed up, but how those who showed up voted.

    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the most appropriate.

currency: USD

source: unavailable


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: opposite
Target surface form: opposite
Context:
Tuesday's rout of a GOP congressional hopeful in a Mississippi district that hasn't backed a Democratic presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson is another reminder that, at least at the federal level, political "ticket splitting "has been on the rise over the past half century. In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the <t>opposite</t>. What accounts for the results of recent decades?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=opposite%1:10:00:: | definition=a word that expresses a meaning opposed to the meaning of another word, in which case the two words are antonyms of each other | synonyms=antonym, opposite word | examples=to him the antonym of `gay' was `depressed'
2. sense_key=opposite%1:24:03:: | definition=a relation of direct opposition | synonyms=reverse, contrary | examples=we thought Sue was older than Bill but just the reverse was true
3. sense_key=opposite%1:18:00:: | definition=a contestant that you are matched against | synonyms=opposition, opponent
4. sense_key=opposite%1:24:04:: | definition=something inverted in sequence or character or effect | synonyms=inverse | examples=when the direct approach failed he tried the inverse

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

raw_output:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `opposite`
    *   Target surface form: `opposite`
    *   Context: "In every presidential election over the past half century... the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major-party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats... Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the <t>opposite</t>."
    *   Meaning: The text describes a pattern (GOP does better in presidential races than congressional races). It then says that before 1932, the pattern was the "opposite" (meaning GOP did better in congressional races than presidential races, or vice versa).

    *   Sense 1: `opposite%1:10:00::` - A word that expresses a meaning opposed to another (antonym). (Incorrect: Not talking about words/linguistics).
    *   Sense 2: `opposite%1:24:03::` - A relation of direct opposition; reverse, contrary. Example: "we thought Sue was older than Bill but just the reverse was true". (Fits well: The pattern was reversed).
    *   Sense 3: `opposite%1:18:00::` - A contestant you are matched against; opponent. (Incorrect: Not talking about a person/opponent).
    *   Sense 4: `opposite%1:24:04::` - Something inverted in sequence or character or effect; inverse. (Similar to Sense 2, but "inverse" often implies a mathematical or structural inversion).

    *   Sense 2 (reverse, contrary) vs. Sense 4 (inverse).
    *   Context: "the pattern was nearly the opposite."
    *   Sense 2 example: "we thought Sue was older than Bill but just the reverse was true." This matches the structure of comparing two states/patterns (A > B vs B > A).
    *   Sense 4 example: "when the direct approach failed he tried the inverse." This refers more to a method or sequence.
    *   In the context of a "pattern" being the opposite, "reverse" or "contrary" (Sense 2) is the most natural fit for a general reversal of a trend or relationship.

    *   Sense 2: `opposite%1:24:03::` (reverse, contrary).
    *   Sense 4: `opposite%1:24:04::` (inverse).
    *   Looking at the WordNet hierarchy or common usage, "the opposite" in the sense of "the reverse was true" is a classic use of Sense 2.

    *   Sense 1: Antonym (No)
    *   Sense 2: Reverse/Contrary (Yes)
    *   Sense 3: Opponent (No)
    *   Sense 4: Inverse (Possible, but Sense 2 is a better fit for "the pattern was the opposite").

    *Wait, let me double-check Sense 2 and Sense 4 again.*
    Sense 2: "a relation of direct opposition" (synonyms: reverse, contrary).
    Sense 4: "something inverted in sequence or character or effect" (synonyms: inverse).

    "The pattern was nearly the opposite" means the relationship between the two variables (presidential vote vs congressional seats) was reversed. This aligns perfectly with the example for Sense 2 ("we thought Sue was older than Bill but just the reverse was true").

    Sense 2 is the best fit.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: account_for
Target surface form: accounts for
Context:
In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What <t>accounts for</t> the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=account_for%2:42:00:: | definition=be the reason or explanation for | examples=The recession accounts for the slow retail business
2. sense_key=account_for%2:32:00:: | definition=give reasons for | examples=Can you account for all these absences?

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `account_for`
    *   Target surface form: `accounts for`
    *   Context: "What <t>accounts for</t> the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `account_for%2:42:00::` | definition: "be the reason or explanation for" | example: "The recession accounts for the slow retail business"
        2.  `account_for%2:32:00::` | definition: "give reasons for" | example: "Can you account for all these absences?"

    *   The sentence is: "What accounts for the results of recent decades?"
    *   The following sentence says: "A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for..."
    *   The question "What accounts for X?" is asking "What is the reason/explanation for X?"

    *   Sense 1: "be the reason or explanation for" (e.g., "The recession accounts for the slow retail business"). This matches perfectly. The "What" in the question is the subject that *is* the reason.
    *   Sense 2: "give reasons for" (e.g., "Can you account for all these absences?"). This usually implies a person providing an explanation or justification for something. In the context "What accounts for the results...", the "What" is not a person giving an explanation, but the cause itself.

    *   Sense 1 is the correct fit.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: result
Target surface form: results
Context:
In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the <t>results</t> of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=result%1:19:00:: | definition=a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon | synonyms=consequence, effect, outcome, event, issue, upshot | examples=the magnetic effect was greater when the rod was lengthwise; his decision had depressing consequences for business
2. sense_key=result%1:10:00:: | definition=a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem | synonyms=solution, answer, resolution, solvent | examples=they were trying to find a peaceful solution; the answers were in the back of the book
3. sense_key=result%1:11:00:: | definition=something that results | synonyms=resultant, final result, outcome, termination | examples=he listened for the results on the radio
4. sense_key=result%1:10:01:: | definition=the semantic role of the noun phrase whose referent exists only by virtue of the activity denoted by the verb in the clause | synonyms=resultant role

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

raw_output:
```json
{"sense_index": 3}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 3}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `result`
    *   Target surface form: `results`
    *   Context: "What accounts for the <t>results</t> of recent decades?"
    *   Surrounding context: The text discusses voting patterns in presidential and congressional elections over several decades, specifically the trend of "split-ticket" voting (choosing different parties for President and House).

    *   Sense 1: `result%1:19:00::` - a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon (consequence, effect, outcome).
    *   Sense 2: `result%1:10:00::` - a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem (solution, answer).
    *   Sense 3: `result%1:11:00::` - something that results (resultant, final result, outcome). Example: "he listened for the results on the radio".
    *   Sense 4: `result%1:10:01::` - semantic role (linguistics).

    *   The text is talking about election data/outcomes (percentages of votes, seats captured).
    *   "What accounts for the results of recent decades?" refers to the observed outcomes of the elections.
    *   Sense 3 specifically mentions "he listened for the results on the radio," which is the classic usage for election results.
    *   Sense 1 is more about cause-and-effect consequences (e.g., "his decision had depressing consequences").
    *   Sense 2 is about solutions to problems.
    *   Sense 4 is a technical linguistic term.

    *   Sense 3 (`result%1:11:00::`) fits best because it refers to the outcome of a process (like an election or a test), which aligns perfectly with the context of election data.

    *   Sense 1: consequence/effect.
    *   Sense 3: outcome/resultant (specifically used for things like election results).
    *   The context "results of recent decades" refers to the patterns/outcomes of the elections. While "outcome" is a synonym for both, Sense 3's example ("results on the radio") strongly points to the specific meaning of "election results."


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: recent
Target surface form: recent
Context:
In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of <t>recent</t> decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=recent%5:00:00:new:00 | definition=new | examples=recent graduates; a recent addition to the house
2. sense_key=recent%5:00:00:past:00 | definition=of the immediate past or just previous to the present time | synonyms=late | examples=a late development; their late quarrel

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `recent`
    *   Target surface form: `recent`
    *   Context: "What accounts for the results of <t>recent</t> decades?"
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `recent%5:00:00:new:00`: new (e.g., recent graduates, recent addition)
        2.  `recent%5:00:00:past:00`: of the immediate past or just previous to the present time (e.g., a late development, their late quarrel)

    *   The sentence is "What accounts for the results of recent decades?"
    *   "Recent decades" refers to the time period just before the present.
    *   The text discusses trends in presidential elections from 1948 to the present (mentioning "the past half century").

    *   Sense 1 ("new") usually refers to things that have just come into existence or are newly acquired (e.g., "recent graduates").
    *   Sense 2 ("of the immediate past or just previous to the present time") refers to time periods that occurred shortly before now.

    *   "Recent decades" fits perfectly with Sense 2 (of the immediate past).

    *   Sense 1: new.
    *   Sense 2: of the immediate past.
    *   "Recent decades" = decades of the immediate past.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: decade
Target surface form: decades
Context:
In only one presidential election year prior to 1948 did more than 20% of the nation's congressional districts choose a different party's candidate for the White House than for the House of Representatives. Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent <t>decades</t>? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=decade%1:28:00:: | definition=a period of 10 years | synonyms=decennary, decennium
2. sense_key=decade%1:23:00:: | definition=the cardinal number that is the sum of nine and one; the base of the decimal system | synonyms=ten, 10, X, tenner

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `decade`
    *   Target surface form: `decades`
    *   Context: "What accounts for the results of recent <t>decades</t>?"
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `decade%1:28:00::` (a period of 10 years)
        2.  `decade%1:23:00::` (the cardinal number 10)

    *   The sentence is "What accounts for the results of recent decades?"
    *   "Recent decades" refers to periods of time (specifically, multiple 10-year periods).
    *   It does not refer to the number 10 itself.

    *   Sense 1: "a period of 10 years" - This fits perfectly.
    *   Sense 2: "the cardinal number that is the sum of nine and one" - This does not fit.

    *   The correct sense is Sense 1.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: simple
Target surface form: simple
Context:
Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A <t>simple</t> economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions:

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=simple%3:00:02:: | definition=having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved | examples=a simple problem; simple mechanisms
2. sense_key=simple%5:00:00:easy:01 | definition=easy and not involved or complicated | synonyms=elementary, uncomplicated, unproblematic | examples=an elementary problem in statistics; elementary, my dear Watson
3. sense_key=simple%5:00:02:plain:01 | definition=apart from anything else; without additions or modifications | synonyms=bare, mere | examples=only the bare facts; shocked by the mere idea
4. sense_key=simple%5:00:00:naive:00 | definition=exhibiting childlike simplicity and credulity | synonyms=childlike, wide-eyed, round-eyed, dewy-eyed | examples=childlike trust; dewy-eyed innocence
5. sense_key=simple%5:00:00:retarded:00 | definition=lacking mental capacity and subtlety | synonyms=dim-witted, simple-minded
6. sense_key=simple%3:00:01:: | definition=(botany) of leaf shapes; of leaves having no divisions or subdivisions | synonyms=unsubdivided
7. sense_key=simple%5:00:00:plain:01 | definition=unornamented | examples=a simple country schoolhouse; her black dress--simple to austerity

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: "simple"
    *   Target surface form: "simple"
    *   Context: "A <t>simple</t> economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `simple%3:00:02::`: having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved (e.g., a simple problem; simple mechanisms).
        2.  `simple%5:00:00:easy:01`: easy and not involved or complicated (e.g., elementary problem in statistics).
        3.  `simple%5:00:02:plain:01`: apart from anything else; without additions or modifications (e.g., only the bare facts; mere idea).
        4.  `simple%5:00:00:naive:00`: exhibiting childlike simplicity and credulity.
        5.  `simple%5:00:00:retarded:00`: lacking mental capacity and subtlety.
        6.  `simple%3:00:01::`: (botany) leaf shapes.
        7.  `simple%5:00:00:plain:01`: unornamented.

    *   The phrase is "A simple economic theory".
    *   In this context, "simple" describes a theory.
    *   A "simple theory" is one that is not complex, has few assumptions or parts, and is easy to understand.

    *   Sense 1: "having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved". This fits well. A theory with few assumptions is not complex.
    *   Sense 2: "easy and not involved or complicated". This also fits, but "easy" often refers to the effort required to solve something (like a problem), whereas "not complex" (Sense 1) refers to the structure of the theory itself.
    *   Sense 3: "apart from anything else; without additions or modifications" (mere). "A mere economic theory" doesn't fit the intended meaning here.
    *   Sense 4: "childlike simplicity". Not applicable.
    *   Sense 5: "lacking mental capacity". Not applicable.
    *   Sense 6: Botany. Not applicable.
    *   Sense 7: "unornamented". Not applicable.

    *   Sense 1: "having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved"
    *   Sense 2: "easy and not involved or complicated"
    *   Comparing "not complex" (Sense 1) vs "easy" (Sense 2).
    *   In the context of a theory, "simple" usually means it's not complex (parsimonious). Sense 1 specifically mentions "not complex or complicated or involved". Sense 2 focuses on "easy". While a simple theory is often easy to understand, the primary characteristic being highlighted is its lack of complexity.

    *   Sense 1: "having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved"
    *   Sense 2: "easy and not involved or complicated"
    *   Looking at the examples:
        *   Sense 1: "a simple problem; simple mechanisms"
        *   Sense 2: "an elementary problem in statistics"
    *   A "simple economic theory" is more about the structure (not complex) than the ease of solving it.

    *   Sense 1 is the most accurate description of a theory that is not complex.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: partial
Target surface form: partial
Context:
Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a <t>partial</t> explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions:

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=partial%5:00:00:incomplete:00 | definition=being or affecting only a part; not total | examples=a partial description of the suspect; partial collapse
2. sense_key=partial%3:00:01:: | definition=showing favoritism
3. sense_key=partial%5:00:00:inclined:02 | definition=(followed by `of' or `to') having a strong preference or liking for | synonyms=fond | examples=fond of chocolate; partial to horror movies

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: "partial"
    *   Target surface form: "partial"
    *   Context: "A simple economic theory may provide at least a <t>partial</t> explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `partial%5:00:00:incomplete:00`: being or affecting only a part; not total (e.g., partial description, partial collapse).
        2.  `partial%3:00:01::`: showing favoritism.
        3.  `partial%5:00:00:inclined:02`: (followed by 'of' or 'to') having a strong preference or liking for (synonym: fond).

    *   The phrase is "a partial explanation".
    *   Does "partial" here mean "showing favoritism"? No.
    *   Does "partial" here mean "having a strong preference or liking for"? No.
    *   Does "partial" here mean "incomplete" or "not total"? Yes. An explanation that provides some, but not all, of the answer is a partial explanation.

    *   Sense 1: "being or affecting only a part; not total". This fits perfectly.

    *   Sense 1 matches the context.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: display
Target surface form: displayed
Context:
Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality <t>displayed</t> by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions:

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=display%2:39:00:: | definition=to show, make visible or apparent | synonyms=expose, exhibit | examples=The Metropolitan Museum is exhibiting Goya's works this month; Why don't you show your nice legs and wear shorter skirts?
2. sense_key=display%2:41:00:: | definition=attract attention by displaying some body part or posing; of animals

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `display`
    *   Target surface form: `displayed`
    *   Context: "...A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality <t>displayed</t> by Americans in the voting booth."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `display%2:39:00::` - to show, make visible or apparent (synonyms: expose, exhibit).
        2.  `display%2:41:00::` - attract attention by displaying some body part or posing; of animals.

    *   The sentence discusses a "split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth."
    *   "Split personality" here refers to a behavioral pattern (voting for Republicans for president but not for Congress).
    *   "Displayed" in this context means "shown," "exhibited," or "manifested."

    *   Sense 1: "to show, make visible or apparent." This fits perfectly. The behavior (split personality) is being shown or manifested.
    *   Sense 2: "attract attention by displaying some body part or posing; of animals." This is clearly incorrect as it refers to physical posing or animal behavior.

    *   Sense 1 is the correct choice.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: american
Target surface form: Americans
Context:
Now that percentage routinely equals a third and twice has been above 40%. As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by <t>Americans</t> in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions:

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=american%1:18:00:: | definition=a native or inhabitant of the United States
2. sense_key=american%1:10:00:: | definition=the English language as used in the United States | synonyms=American English, American language
3. sense_key=american%1:18:01:: | definition=a native or inhabitant of a North American or Central American or South American country

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `american`
    *   Target surface form: `Americans`
    *   Context: "...A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by <t>Americans</t> in the voting booth."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `american%1:18:00::`: a native or inhabitant of the United States.
        2.  `american%1:10:00::`: the English language as used in the United States.
        3.  `american%1:18:01::`: a native or inhabitant of a North American or Central American or South American country.

    *   The text discusses voters, Republicans, GOP, presidential elections, and congressional seats.
    *   These terms specifically refer to the political system of the United States.
    *   The phrase "split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth" refers to the people voting in these US elections.

    *   Sense 1: Native or inhabitant of the United States. (Fits perfectly)
    *   Sense 2: The English language. (Does not fit; languages don't vote)
    *   Sense 3: Native or inhabitant of any country in the Americas. (Too broad; the context is specifically about US politics)

    *   The context is exclusively about the US political system. Therefore, "Americans" refers to people of the United States.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: assumption
Target surface form: assumptions
Context:
As we know, voters tend to favor Republicans more in races for president than in those for Congress. In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three <t>assumptions</t>: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their political agents -- a Republican brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=assumption%1:10:00:: | definition=a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn | synonyms=premise, premiss | examples=on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play
2. sense_key=assumption%1:09:00:: | definition=a hypothesis that is taken for granted | synonyms=supposition, supposal | examples=any society is built upon certain assumptions
3. sense_key=assumption%1:04:00:: | definition=the act of taking possession of or power over something | synonyms=laying claim | examples=his assumption of office coincided with the trouble in Cuba; the Nazi assumption of power in 1934
4. sense_key=assumption%1:28:00:: | definition=celebration in the Roman Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary's being taken up into heaven when her earthly life ended; corresponds to the Dormition in the Eastern Orthodox Church | synonyms=Assumption of Mary, August 15
5. sense_key=assumption%1:11:00:: | definition=(Christianity) the taking up of the body and soul of the Virgin Mary when her earthly life had ended
6. sense_key=assumption%1:07:00:: | definition=audacious (even arrogant) behavior that you have no right to | synonyms=presumption, presumptuousness, effrontery | examples=he despised them for their presumptuousness
7. sense_key=assumption%1:04:01:: | definition=the act of assuming or taking for granted | examples=your assumption that I would agree was unwarranted

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `assumption`
    *   Target surface form: `assumptions`
    *   Context: "The theory relies on three <t>assumptions</t>: 1 -RRB- Voters can 'buy' one of two brands..."
    *   The context describes a theory based on certain starting points or premises (voters treating parties as brands).

    *   Sense 1: `assumption%1:10:00::` - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn (synonyms: premise, premiss).
    *   Sense 2: `assumption%1:09:00::` - a hypothesis that is taken for granted (synonyms: supposition, supposal).
    *   Sense 3: `assumption%1:04:00::` - the act of taking possession of or power over something (synonyms: laying claim).
    *   Sense 4: `assumption%1:28:00::` - celebration in the Roman Catholic Church...
    *   Sense 5: `assumption%1:11:00::` - (Christianity) the taking up of the body and soul...
    *   Sense 6: `assumption%1:07:00::` - audacious (even arrogant) behavior...
    *   Sense 7: `assumption%1:04:01::` - the act of assuming or taking for granted.

    *   The context says "The theory relies on three assumptions".
    *   The assumptions are the building blocks of the theory.
    *   Sense 1 (premise) and Sense 2 (hypothesis taken for granted) are very close.
    *   Sense 1: "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn".
    *   Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted".
    *   In the context of a "theory" relying on them, "premises" (Sense 1) is a very strong fit. A theory is typically built on premises from which conclusions are drawn.
    *   Let's look at the examples:
        *   Sense 1: "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play" (inference/conclusion).
        *   Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions" (foundational beliefs).
    *   The context "The theory relies on three assumptions" is very similar to "any society is built upon certain assumptions".
    *   However, Sense 1 specifically mentions "from which a conclusion can be drawn", which is exactly what a theory does.
    *   Let's re-evaluate Sense 1 vs Sense 2.
        *   Sense 1: premise, premiss.
        *   Sense 2: supposition, supposal.
    *   In academic/theoretical contexts, "assumptions" are often treated as "premises".
    *   Wait, let's look at Sense 2 again: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted".
    *   Looking at the provided examples for Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions". This matches the "theory relies on" structure perfectly.
    *   Looking at Sense 1: "on the assumption that... we can infer...". This is more about a specific logical step.
    *   Actually, in many WordNet-based datasets, "assumptions" in the context of a theory are often mapped to the "premise" sense (Sense 1) or the "supposition" sense (Sense 2).
    *   Let's compare "premise" and "supposition". A premise is a statement that an argument starts with. A supposition is something assumed to be true.
    *   The text says "The theory relies on three assumptions: 1... Voters can 'buy' one of two brands...". This is a premise for the theory.

    *   Sense 1: `assumption%1:10:00::` (premise)
    *   Sense 2: `assumption%1:09:00::` (supposition)
    *   Sense 7: `assumption%1:04:01::` (the act of assuming) - This is the *act*, not the *statement*.

    Comparing Sense 1 and Sense 2 again:
    Sense 1: "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn"
    Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted"

    In the context of a theory, the "assumptions" are the starting points (premises) used to build the theoretical framework and draw conclusions about voter behavior.

    Let's check common usage in WSD tasks for "theory relies on assumptions". Usually, this refers to the premises.

    Wait, let's look at the examples again.
    Sense 1: "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
    Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions"

    The phrase "The theory relies on three assumptions" is structurally almost identical to "any society is built upon certain assumptions".

    Let's double-check the definitions.
    Sense 1: premise.
    Sense 2: supposition.

    In logic, a premise is a proposition upon which an argument is based. A theory is essentially a complex argument.

    Let's look at the provided options again.
    1. sense_key=assumption%1:10:00:: (premise)
    2. sense_key=assumption%1:09:00:: (supposition)

    If I have to choose the *best* one:
    "The theory relies on three assumptions" -> These are the foundational beliefs/hypotheses the theory is built upon.
    Sense 2's example "any society is built upon certain assumptions" is a very close match for "The theory relies on three assumptions".

    However, Sense 1's definition "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn" is the definition of a premise, and a theory is a set of conclusions drawn from premises.

    Let's search for "theory relies on assumptions" in linguistic corpora. Often, "assumption" in this context is synonymous with "premise".

    Let's re-read Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted".
    Let's re-read Sense 1: "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn".

    The "assumptions" listed (e.g., "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands") are statements assumed to be true to allow the theory to function and draw conclusions about why voters favor Republicans more in presidential races.

    Actually, looking at the WordNet hierarchy:
    assumption%1:10:00 (premise) is a kind of assumption.
    assumption%1:09:00 (supposition) is a kind of assumption.

    In many contexts, these are interchangeable. But "premise" is more formal and fits "theory" better.

    Let's look at the examples again.
    Sense 1: "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
    Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions"

    The "theory relies on" phrasing is much closer to "society is built upon".

    Let's try to find this specific sentence online. It's from a political science text.
    "The theory relies on three assumptions: 1. Voters can 'buy' one of two brands..."

    If I search for "theory relies on assumptions" and "WordNet", often Sense 1 (premise) is used when the assumption is a logical starting point.

    Let's reconsider Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted".
    A theory's assumptions are exactly that: hypotheses taken for granted for the sake of the model.

    Wait, let's look at Sense 1 again: "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn".
    This is almost the definition of an assumption in a theoretical model.

    Let's compare:
    Sense 1: premise
    Sense 2: supposition

    A "premise" is more tied to the *logical structure* of the argument (If A, then B).
    A "supposition" is more about the *act* of assuming something without proof.

    The text says "The theory relies on three assumptions". This is describing the logical foundation.

    Let's look at the examples one more time.
    Sense 1: "on the assumption that... we can infer..." (Logical inference)
    Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions" (Foundational belief)

    "The theory relies on three assumptions" is a foundational statement.

    Let's try to see if there's a distinction in WordNet between `assumption%1:10:00` and `assumption%1:09:00`.
    `assumption%1:10:00` (premise) -> `premise`
    `assumption%1:09:00` (supposition) -> `supposition`

    In most contexts, "premise" is the stronger word for a theory.

    Let's check Sense 7: "the act of assuming or taking for granted".
    "The theory relies on three [acts of assuming]" - No.

    So it's between 1 and 2.
    Sense 1: premise.
    Sense 2: supposition.

    If I have to pick the *single best* sense:
    "The theory relies on three assumptions"
    Assumption 1: Voters can "buy" one of two brands...
    This is a premise.

    Let's look at the example for Sense 2 again: "any society is built upon certain assumptions".
    This is very similar to "The theory relies on three assumptions".

    Let's look at the example for Sense 1 again: "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play".
    This is a specific instance of using an assumption to reach a conclusion.

    In the context of a theory, the assumptions are the premises.

    Let's search for "assumption" in a similar context in a WSD dataset (like SemCor).
    In SemCor, "assumption" meaning "premise" is often tagged as the sense related to "premise".

    Let's double-check the sense keys.
    1: assumption%1:10:00 (premise)
    2: assumption%1:09:00 (supposition)

    Actually, looking at the definitions again:
    Sense 1: "a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn"
    Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted"

    A theory is a set of conclusions drawn from assumptions. Therefore, the assumptions are the statements from which the conclusions are drawn. This fits Sense 1 perfectly.

    Let's re-verify Sense 2: "a hypothesis that is taken for granted".
    This also fits. But "premise" (Sense 1) is the more precise term for the starting point of a theory.

    Let's think about the difference between a "supposition" and a "premise".
    A supposition is often a guess.
    A premise is a formal starting point for an argument.
    A theory's assumptions are formal starting points.

    Therefore, Sense 1 is slightly better.

    Wait, let me look at the examples one more time.
    Sense 1: "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
    Sense 2: "any society is built upon certain assumptions"

    The "built upon" in Sense 2 is so close to "relies on" in the target sentence.
    "The theory relies on three assumptions"
    "Any society is built upon certain assumptions"

    Let's search for "theory relies on assumptions" and "premise".
    Many sources use them interchangeably.

    Let's try to find if there's a more definitive way to distinguish them.
    WordNet's `assumption%1:10:00` (premise) is a hyponym of `assumption%1:09:00` (supposition) in some versions of WordNet? No, they are usually sister terms under `assumption`.

    Let's look at the synonyms:
    Sense 1: premise, premiss
    Sense 2: supposition, supposal

    "The theory relies on three premises" sounds very natural.
    "The theory relies on three suppositions" sounds slightly less natural.

    Let's go with Sense 1.

    Wait, let me search for the phrase "relies on three assumptions" in a corpus.
    It's very common.
    Now let's see if "relies on three premises" is as common.
    Yes, it is.

    Let's look at the context again.
    "The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can 'buy' one of two brands..."
    This is a statement that is assumed to be true, and from it, the theory will draw conclusions about voting behavior. This is the exact definition of Sense 1.

    Final check:
    Sense 1: statement assumed true -> conclusion drawn. (Premise)
    Sense 2: hypothesis taken for granted. (Supposition)
    Sense 3: taking possession.
    Sense 4: Catholic holiday.
    Sense 5: Virgin Mary.
    Sense 6: arrogance.
    Sense 7: the act of assuming.

    Sense 1 is the most precise for a theoretical framework.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: brand
Target surface form: brands
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two <t>brands</t> when they select their political agents -- a Republican brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=brand%1:10:00:: | definition=a name given to a product or service | synonyms=trade name, brand name, marque
2. sense_key=brand%1:09:00:: | definition=a recognizable kind | synonyms=make | examples=there's a new brand of hero in the movies now; what make of car is that?
3. sense_key=brand%1:10:02:: | definition=identification mark on skin, made by burning
4. sense_key=brand%1:27:00:: | definition=a piece of wood that has been burned or is burning | synonyms=firebrand
5. sense_key=brand%1:10:01:: | definition=a symbol of disgrace or infamy; --Genesis | synonyms=mark, stigma, stain | examples=And the Lord set a mark upon Cain
6. sense_key=brand%1:06:00:: | definition=a cutting or thrusting weapon that has a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard | synonyms=sword, blade, steel

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `brand`
    *   Target surface form: `brands`
    *   Context: "Voters can 'buy' one of two <t>brands</t> when they select their political agents -- a Republican brand that believes in the minimalist state... and a Democratic brand that believes in big government..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `brand%1:10:00::`: a name given to a product or service (trade name, brand name, marque)
        2.  `brand%1:09:00::`: a recognizable kind (make) - Example: "there's a new brand of hero in the movies now"
        3.  `brand%1:10:02::`: identification mark on skin, made by burning
        4.  `brand%1:27:00::`: a piece of wood that has been burned or is burning (firebrand)
        5.  `brand%1:10:01::`: a symbol of disgrace or infamy (mark, stigma, stain)
        6.  `brand%1:06:00::`: a cutting or thrusting weapon (sword, blade, steel)

    *   The text uses "brands" metaphorically in the context of political parties (Republican and Democratic).
    *   It says voters "buy" one of two brands.
    *   It describes the "Republican brand" and the "Democratic brand" as sets of beliefs/identities.
    *   This is a metaphorical use of "brand" as a product/service name (Sense 1) or a recognizable kind/type (Sense 2).

    *   Sense 1: "a name given to a product or service". This is the literal meaning of commercial branding.
    *   Sense 2: "a recognizable kind". Example: "a new brand of hero". This is a more figurative use, referring to a type or category of something.

    *   The text says "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands". The use of "buy" (in quotes) strongly suggests the commercial metaphor of a product/service name (Sense 1).
    *   However, the "Republican brand" and "Democratic brand" are being treated as "kinds" of political agents or ideologies.
    *   Let's look at the examples for Sense 2: "there's a new brand of hero in the movies now". This is very similar to "a Republican brand that believes in...".
    *   Wait, Sense 1 is "a name given to a product or service". In modern political science, "branding" is the process of creating a specific image/name for a party to sell to voters.
    *   Let's re-read: "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands... a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand".
    *   If the author is using "buy" and "brands" to describe the political parties as products, Sense 1 is the most direct fit for the metaphor.
    *   If the author is using "brands" to mean "types" or "kinds" of political ideologies, Sense 2 is the fit.
    *   Usually, when people talk about "the [Party] brand", they are referring to the identity/image associated with the party name (Sense 1).

    *   Sense 1: trade name, brand name.
    *   Sense 2: make, recognizable kind.
    *   The context "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands" points heavily towards the commercial concept of a brand name/product identity.

    *   Sense 1: "a name given to a product or service"
    *   Sense 2: "a recognizable kind"
    *   In the sentence "a Republican brand that believes in...", the word "brand" is used to represent the party's identity/image. This aligns closely with the concept of a "brand name" or "trade name" applied metaphorically to a political party.
    *   However, "a new brand of hero" (Sense 2) is also a metaphorical use.
    *   Let's compare:
        *   "The Republican brand" (The image/name of the party) -> Sense 1.
        *   "A brand of politician" (A type of politician) -> Sense 2.
    *   The text says "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands... a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand". This sounds more like they are choosing between two "products" (the parties) based on their "brands" (their identities/names).

    *   Sense 1 is the most common way "brand" is used when referring to the identity of a political party (e.g., "the party brand").
    *   Sense 2 is more about "type" or "sort".
    *   The use of "buy" strongly reinforces the commercial metaphor of Sense 1.

    *   Sense 1: brand%1:10:00::
    *   Sense 2: brand%1:09:00::
    *   Sense 3: brand%1:10:02::
    *   Sense 4: brand%1:27:00::
    *   Sense 5: brand%1:10:01::
    *   Sense 6: brand%1:06:00::

    The target word is "brands". The context is political parties as products. This is a metaphorical application of Sense 1.

    *Self-Correction:* Let me double-check Sense 2 again. "a recognizable kind". "A Republican brand" could be seen as "a Republican kind [of political agent]". But the phrasing "buy one of two brands" makes Sense 1 much more likely.

    *Wait*, let's look at the phrasing again: "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands... a Republican brand that believes in... and a Democratic brand that believes in...".
    Actually, "a Republican brand" here is almost synonymous with "a Republican party" or "the Republican identity".
    If I say "a new brand of hero", I mean a new *type* of hero.
    If I say "the Apple brand", I mean the *name/image* of the company.
    The text says "a Republican brand that believes in...". This sounds like it's describing the *kind* of brand/party.

    Let's re-evaluate Sense 1 vs Sense 2.
    Sense 1: name given to a product.
    Sense 2: recognizable kind.
    "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands" -> This is the core of the metaphor. You buy a brand (Sense 1).
    "a Republican brand that believes in..." -> This describes the characteristics of that brand.

    If the author meant "kind", they would say "Voters can choose between two kinds of political agents". By using "buy" and "brands", they are explicitly invoking the commercial sense of a brand (Sense 1).

    Sense 1: brand%1:10:00::
    Sense 2: brand%1:09:00::
    The index for Sense 1 is 1.

    Wait, let me check the candidate senses list provided in the prompt:
    1. sense_key=brand%1:10:00:: | definition=a name given to a product or service
    2. sense_key=brand%1:09:00:: | definition=a recognizable kind
    ...

    The most fitting is Sense 1.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: political
Target surface form: political
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their <t>political</t> agents -- a Republican brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=political%3:00:00:: | definition=involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians; - Daniel Goleman | examples=calling a meeting is a political act in itself; political pressure
2. sense_key=political%3:01:01:: | definition=of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power | examples=political opinions
3. sense_key=political%3:01:02:: | definition=of or relating to the profession of governing | examples=political career

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `political`
    *   Target surface form: `political`
    *   Context: "...Voters can 'buy' one of two brands when they select their <t>political</t> agents -- a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `political%3:00:00::`: involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians.
        2.  `political%3:01:01::`: of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power.
        3.  `political%3:01:02::`: of or relating to the profession of governing.

    *   The phrase is "political agents".
    *   The context discusses presidential elections, the GOP (Republican party), Democratic brand, congressional seats, and voters selecting representatives.
    *   "Political agents" here refers to the candidates/politicians (Republicans and Democrats) that voters choose to represent them.

    *   Sense 1: "involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians". This fits well because the agents are members of political parties (Republican/Democratic) and are politicians.
    *   Sense 2: "of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power". This refers more to personal ideology or political opinions (e.g., "my political views"). Not the best fit for "political agents".
    *   Sense 3: "of or relating to the profession of governing". This refers to the career or the act of governing (e.g., "political career"). While the agents will govern, the term "political agents" in the context of parties and elections aligns more closely with the general nature of politics/parties/politicians.

    *   The context explicitly mentions "Republican brand" and "Democratic brand".
    *   Sense 1 specifically mentions "parties or politicians".
    *   "Political agents" in this context are the politicians representing these parties.

    *   Sense 1: politics, parties, politicians. (Perfect fit)
    *   Sense 2: views, authority, power. (Too abstract)
    *   Sense 3: profession of governing. (Close, but Sense 1 is more direct regarding parties/politicians).

    *   The target word "political" modifies "agents". These agents are the candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties. Sense 1 covers "parties or politicians".


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: agent
Target surface form: agents
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their political <t>agents</t> -- a Republican brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=agent%1:17:00:: | definition=an active and efficient cause; capable of producing a certain effect | examples=their research uncovered new disease agents
2. sense_key=agent%1:18:02:: | definition=a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations
3. sense_key=agent%1:27:00:: | definition=a substance that exerts some force or effect
4. sense_key=agent%1:18:01:: | definition=a businessman who buys or sells for another in exchange for a commission | synonyms=factor, broker
5. sense_key=agent%1:18:03:: | definition=any agent or representative of a federal agency or bureau | synonyms=federal agent
6. sense_key=agent%1:10:00:: | definition=the semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause | synonyms=agentive role

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `agent`
    *   Target surface form: `agents`
    *   Context: "...Voters can 'buy' one of two brands when they select their political <t>agents</t> -- a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand..."
    *   The context discusses voters selecting political representatives (Republican or Democratic) in elections.

    *   Sense 1: `agent%1:17:00::` - an active and efficient cause; capable of producing a certain effect (e.g., disease agents). -> *Incorrect.*
    *   Sense 2: `agent%1:18:02::` - a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations. -> *Fits well. Voters select representatives to act on their behalf.*
    *   Sense 3: `agent%1:27:00::` - a substance that exerts some force or effect. -> *Incorrect.*
    *   Sense 4: `agent%1:18:01::` - a businessman who buys or sells for another in exchange for a commission (broker). -> *Incorrect.*
    *   Sense 5: `agent%1:18:03::` - any agent or representative of a federal agency or bureau (federal agent). -> *Incorrect (too specific to law enforcement/bureaucracy).*
    *   Sense 6: `agent%1:10:00::` - the semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening... -> *Incorrect (linguistic term).*

    *   The text describes voters selecting "political agents" (Republican or Democratic).
    *   In political science and economics (which the text mentions: "A simple economic theory"), the "principal-agent problem" refers to the relationship where a principal (the voter) hires an agent (the politician/representative) to act on their behalf.
    *   Sense 2 ("a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations") perfectly matches this usage.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: republican
Target surface form: Republican
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their political agents -- a <t>Republican</t> brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=republican%3:01:01:: | definition=relating to or belonging to the Republican Party | examples=a Republican senator; Republican party politics
2. sense_key=republican%5:00:00:democratic:00 | definition=having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them or characteristic of such government; - United States Constitution; ; - Philip Marsh; -Nathaniel Hawthorne | examples=the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government; a very republican notion

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `republican`
    *   Target surface form: `Republican`
    *   Context: "...a <t>Republican</t> brand that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `republican%3:01:01::`: relating to or belonging to the Republican Party (e.g., a Republican senator).
        2.  `republican%5:00:00:democratic:00`: having the supreme power lying in the body of citizens... (republican form of government).

    *   The context mentions "the GOP" (Grand Old Party, a common nickname for the Republican Party).
    *   It contrasts "a Republican brand" with "a Democratic brand".
    *   It discusses presidential elections, congressional seats, and political agents.
    *   The description "believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets" describes the platform of the US Republican Party.

    *   Sense 1 refers specifically to the Republican Party (political party).
    *   Sense 2 refers to the general concept of a republic (government by citizens).

    *   The context is clearly about the US political party (GOP), not the general form of government.

    *   Sense 1 is the correct match.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: brand
Target surface form: brand
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their political agents -- a Republican <t>brand</t> that believes in the minimalist state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=brand%1:10:00:: | definition=a name given to a product or service | synonyms=trade name, brand name, marque
2. sense_key=brand%1:09:00:: | definition=a recognizable kind | synonyms=make | examples=there's a new brand of hero in the movies now; what make of car is that?
3. sense_key=brand%1:10:02:: | definition=identification mark on skin, made by burning
4. sense_key=brand%1:27:00:: | definition=a piece of wood that has been burned or is burning | synonyms=firebrand
5. sense_key=brand%1:10:01:: | definition=a symbol of disgrace or infamy; --Genesis | synonyms=mark, stigma, stain | examples=And the Lord set a mark upon Cain
6. sense_key=brand%1:06:00:: | definition=a cutting or thrusting weapon that has a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard | synonyms=sword, blade, steel

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `brand`
    *   Target surface form: `brand`
    *   Context: "...Voters can 'buy' one of two brands when they select their political agents -- a Republican <t>brand</t> that believes in the minimalist state... and a Democratic brand that believes in big government..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `brand%1:10:00::`: a name given to a product or service (trade name, brand name, marque)
        2.  `brand%1:09:00::`: a recognizable kind (make) - Example: "there's a new brand of hero in the movies now"
        3.  `brand%1:10:02::`: identification mark on skin, made by burning
        4.  `brand%1:27:00::`: a piece of wood that has been burned or is burning (firebrand)
        5.  `brand%1:10:01::`: a symbol of disgrace or infamy (mark, stigma, stain)
        6.  `brand%1:06:00::`: a cutting or thrusting weapon (sword, blade)

    *   The text uses "brand" metaphorically in the context of political parties (Republican and Democratic).
    *   It says voters "buy" one of two brands.
    *   It describes the "Republican brand" as believing in a minimalist state and the "Democratic brand" as believing in big government.
    *   This usage refers to the "kind" or "type" of political identity/platform being offered, or metaphorically as a "product" (trade name/brand name).

    *   Sense 1: "a name given to a product or service". This is the literal meaning of a commercial brand.
    *   Sense 2: "a recognizable kind". Example: "a new brand of hero". This is a more general use of "brand" to mean a type or category of something.

    *   The author uses "buy" in quotes ("buy"), indicating a metaphor.
    *   The "Republican brand" and "Democratic brand" are being treated as types of political platforms or identities.
    *   Comparing "a name given to a product" (Sense 1) vs "a recognizable kind" (Sense 2).
    *   In political science and marketing, a "political brand" often refers to the image and identity (the "name" and associated values) of a party.
    *   However, the example for Sense 2 ("a new brand of hero") fits the metaphorical use of "brand" to describe a type of person or entity very well.
    *   Let's look closer: "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands... a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand".
    *   If the author is using "buy" metaphorically, they are treating the political party as a product. If they are treating it as a product, Sense 1 (trade name/product name) is the basis of the metaphor.
    *   But Sense 2 ("a recognizable kind") is often used for these types of metaphorical extensions (e.g., "a brand of politics", "a brand of leadership").

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::` (trade name)
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::` (recognizable kind)
    *   In the sentence "a Republican brand that believes in...", the word "brand" is used to categorize the party's ideology.
    *   "A brand of [something]" usually maps to Sense 2.
    *   "The [Company Name] brand" usually maps to Sense 1.
    *   Here it is "a Republican brand" (meaning a type of political offering/identity).
    *   Wait, "Republican" and "Democratic" are the names of the parties. So "the Republican brand" is the identity associated with that name.
    *   Let's re-read Sense 2: "a recognizable kind". Example: "there's a new brand of hero in the movies now".
    *   Let's re-read Sense 1: "a name given to a product or service".
    *   The context "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands" strongly suggests the commercial metaphor. In a commercial sense, you buy a "brand" (Sense 1).
    *   However, "a Republican brand" is not a trade name for a product; it's a type of political identity.
    *   Actually, in modern usage, "brand" meaning "image/identity" is very close to Sense 1, but "brand" meaning "type/kind" is Sense 2.
    *   Let's look at the examples again. "a new brand of hero" (Sense 2). "Republican brand" is similar to "brand of hero". It's a "kind" of political entity.

    *   Sense 1: trade name, brand name.
    *   Sense 2: make, recognizable kind.
    *   If I say "the Apple brand", I mean the trade name (Sense 1).
    *   If I say "a brand of politics", I mean a kind of politics (Sense 2).
    *   The text says "a Republican brand". This is slightly ambiguous. Is it "the Republican brand" (the identity/name) or "a Republican brand" (a kind of Republicanism)?
    *   The text says "one of two brands... a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand".
    *   This sounds like they are treating the parties as the "brands" themselves.
    *   If the parties are the brands, then "brand" = "trade name/identity" (Sense 1).
    *   If the parties are "kinds" of something, then "brand" = "recognizable kind" (Sense 2).
    *   Given the "buy" metaphor, the author is explicitly drawing a parallel to consumer products. In consumer products, you buy a "brand" (Sense 1).

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::` (trade name)
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::` (recognizable kind)
    *   "a Republican brand that believes in..."
    *   If we replace "brand" with "kind": "a Republican kind that believes in..." (Doesn't fit well).
    *   If we replace "brand" with "trade name": "a Republican trade name that believes in..." (Doesn't fit well).
    *   If we replace "brand" with "make": "a Republican make that believes in..." (Doesn't fit well).
    *   Wait, let's look at the "brand of hero" example again. "a new brand of hero".
    *   "a Republican brand [of political agent/party]".
    *   Actually, the most common way "brand" is used in this political context (political branding) is to refer to the identity/image, which is an extension of the "trade name" (Sense 1).
    *   But let's look at the options again. Sense 2 is "a recognizable kind".
    *   "a Republican brand" = "a Republican type/kind".
    *   Let's search for "brand of politics". It's almost always Sense 2.
    *   "The Republican brand" (the image of the party) is Sense 1.
    *   The text says "a Republican brand". The use of "a" instead of "the" might suggest "a kind of".
    *   However, "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands" strongly points to the commercial product (Sense 1).

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::` (trade name, brand name, marque)
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::` (recognizable kind, make)
    *   In the phrase "a Republican brand", "Republican" is acting as the brand name.
    *   If "Republican" is the brand name, then "brand" refers to the entity identified by that name.
    *   This is exactly what Sense 1 is: "a name given to a product or service".
    *   The "product" here is the political platform/agent.

    *   Sense 2: "a recognizable kind". Example: "a new brand of hero".
    *   If the text meant Sense 2, it would more likely be "a brand of Republican" or "a brand of politics".
    *   Instead, it says "a Republican brand". This structure ("[Brand Name] brand") is very common for Sense 1 (e.g., "a Sony brand television", though usually just "a Sony television").
    *   Wait, "a Republican brand" is slightly odd. Usually, it's "the Republican brand".
    *   Let's re-read: "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands... a Republican brand... and a Democratic brand".
    *   This is definitely treating the parties as commercial brands.

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::` (trade name)
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::` (recognizable kind)
    *   The "buy" metaphor is the key. You buy a brand (Sense 1).
    *   The "Republican brand" is the product being bought.
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the most likely.

    *   Wait, let me double-check Sense 2 again. "a recognizable kind".
    *   If I say "This is a new brand of politics," I mean a new *kind* of politics.
    *   If I say "The Republican brand is struggling," I mean the *image/name* of the party is struggling.
    *   The text says "a Republican brand that believes in...". This is describing the *characteristics* of the brand.
    *   This could be either. But the "buy" metaphor is very strong.

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::`
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::`
    *   Let's look at the synonyms for Sense 2: "make". "What make of car is that?"
    *   "What brand of car is that?" (Sense 2 in some dictionaries, but Sense 1 in others).
    *   Wait, WordNet's Sense 2 says "make" and gives the example "what make of car is that?".
    *   In many contexts, "brand" and "make" are used interchangeably for cars.
    *   But "brand" as "trade name" (Sense 1) is also very close.
    *   Let's re-examine:
        Sense 1: a name given to a product or service.
        Sense 2: a recognizable kind.
    *   "a Republican brand" = a recognizable kind of political agent? Or the trade name "Republican"?
    *   The "buy" metaphor: "Voters can 'buy' one of two brands".
    *   If you buy a "brand", you are buying the product associated with that trade name.
    *   This points to Sense 1.

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::`
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::`
    *   Let's try to find this specific text or similar usage. This looks like it's from a political science paper.
    *   The phrase "the Republican brand" is almost always used to refer to the party's image/identity (Sense 1).
    *   The use of "a" instead of "the" ("a Republican brand") is a bit unusual but doesn't necessarily change the meaning to "kind". It's likely just a stylistic choice or referring to the brand as one of the two options.

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::` (trade name)
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::` (recognizable kind)
    *   If the author meant "kind", they would likely say "a brand of Republican".
    *   By saying "a Republican brand", they are using "Republican" as the modifier for "brand", which is how you'd use a trade name.
    *   Example: "a Nike brand shoe" (Sense 1).
    *   Example: "a new brand of shoe" (Sense 2).
    *   "a Republican brand" follows the "Nike brand shoe" pattern (though "shoe" is omitted).

    *   Sense 1: `brand%1:10:00::`
    *   Sense 2: `brand%1:09:00::`
    *   The "buy" metaphor and the "Republican brand" structure both point more strongly to Sense 1.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: minimalist
Target surface form: minimalist
Context:
In every presidential election over the past half century, except for the Goldwater presidential candidacy, the GOP has captured a greater percentage of the major - party popular vote for president than it has of congressional seats or the popular vote for Congress. Prior to 1932, the pattern was nearly the opposite. What accounts for the results of recent decades? A simple economic theory may provide at least a partial explanation for the split personality displayed by Americans in the voting booth. The theory relies on three assumptions: 1 -RRB- Voters can "buy "one of two brands when they select their political agents -- a Republican brand that believes in the <t>minimalist</t> state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action, and a Democratic brand that believes in big government and in public intervention to remedy the excesses attendant to the pursuit of private interest. 2 -RRB- Congressional representatives have two basic responsibilities while voting in office -- dealing with national issues -LRB- programmatic actions such as casting roll call votes on legislation that imposes costs and/or confers benefits on the population at large -RRB- and attending to local issues -LRB- constituency service and pork barrel -RRB-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=minimalist%3:01:00:: | definition=of or relating to artistic minimalism
2. sense_key=minimalist%5:00:00:moderate:00 | definition=advocating minimal reforms (as in government or politics)

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `minimalist`
    *   Target surface form: `minimalist`
    *   Context: "...a Republican brand that believes in the <t>minimalist</t> state and in the virtues of private markets over the vices of public action..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `minimalist%3:01:00::`: of or relating to artistic minimalism.
        2.  `minimalist%5:00:00:moderate:00`: advocating minimal reforms (as in government or politics).

    *   The context discusses political parties (GOP/Republican vs. Democratic), voting patterns, "big government," "public intervention," and "private markets."
    *   The phrase "minimalist state" refers to a government with limited powers and functions (small government).

    *   Sense 1 is about art. (Incorrect)
    *   Sense 2 is about advocating minimal reforms/intervention in government or politics. (Correct)

    *   The target word "minimalist" in "minimalist state" clearly aligns with the political definition provided in sense 2.