dragonsh

    ChatGPT:
      First response: 
        Mary is the sister of Susan and Susan has 7 brothers. Each of these 7 brothers has one sister, and that sister is Mary. So, Mary has 7 brothers, and she is also the sister of Susan. Therefore, Mary has a total of 8 sisters, including Susan.

     Second Response:
       Mary is the sister of Susan, so she has one sister. There is no need to consider the 7 brothers in this context as the question is asking specifically about how many sisters Mary has.

    GPT-4 Response:
       From the information provided, we can infer that Mary has one sister, Susan. The question specifically asks about how many sisters Mary has, and it doesn't mention any other siblings. Therefore, based on the given information, Mary has only one sister, Susan.

    Anthropic:

     Okay, let's break this down step-by-step:

      Susan has 7 brothers
      Each of Susan's 7 brothers has 1 sister
      So there are 7 sisters total (1 sister for each of the 7 brothers)
      The question asks how many sisters Mary has
      Mary is not mentioned anywhere else in the problem
      So there is no information provided to determine how many sisters Mary has

     Therefore, the question does not provide enough information to determine how many sisters Mary has. The number of sisters Susan's brothers have does not tell us anything about how many sisters someone unrelated named Mary has.

  >>> import this
  The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

  Beautiful is better than ugly.
  Explicit is better than implicit.
  Simple is better than complex.
  Complex is better than complicated.
  Flat is better than nested.
  Sparse is better than dense.
  Readability counts.
  Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
  Although practicality beats purity.
  Errors should never pass silently.
  Unless explicitly silenced.
  In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
  There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
  Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
  Now is better than never.
  Although never is often better than *right* now.
  If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
  If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
  Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
  >>>

  1. Breathe to stomach not chest.
  2. Breathe by nose (unless swimming or underwater).
  3. Inhalation time and exhalation time should be equal and gap between inhalation and exhalation should be sum of it. If it takes x seconds to inhale exhalation should begin after 2x seconds and should finish in x seconds

 Retention (2x) = inhalation time (x) + exhalation time (x).