Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_1

like 0

the fact that the soapberry does not cane Sawan and is not bold is incorrect.

sent1: if the salsa is not costal then the soapberry does not cane Sawan and it is not bold. sent2: the fact that the soapberry does not cane Sawan and it is not bold is incorrect if the salsa does cane Sawan. sent3: there is something such that it is not a Taegu and it is not an express. sent4: if something that is not a Taegu is not an express then the salsa does cane Sawan.

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the soapberry does not cane Sawan and is non-bold.

(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the soapberry does not cane Sawan and is not bold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the salsa is not costal then the soapberry does not cane Sawan and it is not bold. sent2: the fact that the soapberry does not cane Sawan and it is not bold is incorrect if the salsa does cane Sawan. sent3: there is something such that it is not a Taegu and it is not an express. sent4: if something that is not a Taegu is not an express then the salsa does cane Sawan. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the salsa does cane Sawan is not incorrect.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a Taegu and it is not an express.

the flatness does not occur.

sent1: the barring occurs and the ideologicalness occurs. sent2: the jamming occurs. sent3: the suppling does not occur but the sanitation occurs. sent4: the impinging Orff occurs and the sit-down occurs. sent5: the caning cheer does not occur if that both the writtenness and the thermography occurs is not true. sent6: the ship does not occur. sent7: the jacks is prevented by that the coping does not occur. sent8: the structuralness does not occur. sent9: the detriment occurs. sent10: the non-flatness is prevented by that the non-flat happens and/or the sit-down does not occur. sent11: the caning orthodoxy does not occur but the supplication happens. sent12: that not the invaliding but the caning born happens does not hold. sent13: the affirmation and the beam occurs. sent14: the babel does not occur.

¬{AA}

sent1: ({JH} & {DJ}) sent2: {EK} sent3: (¬{JI} & {JF}) sent4: ({B} & {A}) sent5: ¬(¬{FO} & {I}) -> ¬{AJ} sent6: ¬{AD} sent7: ¬{DE} -> ¬{GE} sent8: ¬{DS} sent9: {HM} sent10: ({AA} v ¬{A}) -> {AA} sent11: (¬{HP} & {IO}) sent12: ¬(¬{FR} & {EA}) sent13: ({HU} & {IM}) sent14: ¬{O}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the flat happens.

{AA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flatness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the barring occurs and the ideologicalness occurs. sent2: the jamming occurs. sent3: the suppling does not occur but the sanitation occurs. sent4: the impinging Orff occurs and the sit-down occurs. sent5: the caning cheer does not occur if that both the writtenness and the thermography occurs is not true. sent6: the ship does not occur. sent7: the jacks is prevented by that the coping does not occur. sent8: the structuralness does not occur. sent9: the detriment occurs. sent10: the non-flatness is prevented by that the non-flat happens and/or the sit-down does not occur. sent11: the caning orthodoxy does not occur but the supplication happens. sent12: that not the invaliding but the caning born happens does not hold. sent13: the affirmation and the beam occurs. sent14: the babel does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the impinging Orff occurs and the sit-down occurs.

the buckthorn is not angiomatous and it is non-Seljuk.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is mud-brick then the buckthorn is non-angiomatous thing that is not a kind of a Seljuk. sent2: the buckthorn is not a kind of a scientist and it is not mud-brick. sent3: there is something such that it is mud-brick. sent4: there is something such that it is angiomatous. sent5: the antimatter is not angiomatous.

(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (¬{BC}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: ¬{B}{eu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the buckthorn is not angiomatous and it is non-Seljuk. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is mud-brick then the buckthorn is non-angiomatous thing that is not a kind of a Seljuk. sent2: the buckthorn is not a kind of a scientist and it is not mud-brick. sent3: there is something such that it is mud-brick. sent4: there is something such that it is angiomatous. sent5: the antimatter is not angiomatous. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is mud-brick.

the crashing happens.

sent1: the discomycetousness occurs if the dissolution does not occur. sent2: if that the crumbling does not occur hold the diploid and the crashing occurs. sent3: if the fact that not the viaticalness but the crash occurs is false the crash does not occur. sent4: the fact that the diploidness happens is not wrong. sent5: if the crumbling happens then the fact that both the non-viaticalness and the crash happens is false. sent6: if the crumbling does not occur then the fact that the diploid happens is true. sent7: if the battue does not occur then the times happens and the repetition occurs. sent8: that the crumbling does not occur hold.

{AB}

sent1: ¬{F} -> {HE} sent2: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬(¬{B} & {AB}) -> ¬{AB} sent4: {AA} sent5: {A} -> ¬(¬{B} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({IL} & {D}) sent8: ¬{A}

PROVED

PROVED

the crashing does not occur.

¬{AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crashing happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the discomycetousness occurs if the dissolution does not occur. sent2: if that the crumbling does not occur hold the diploid and the crashing occurs. sent3: if the fact that not the viaticalness but the crash occurs is false the crash does not occur. sent4: the fact that the diploidness happens is not wrong. sent5: if the crumbling happens then the fact that both the non-viaticalness and the crash happens is false. sent6: if the crumbling does not occur then the fact that the diploid happens is true. sent7: if the battue does not occur then the times happens and the repetition occurs. sent8: that the crumbling does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent8 -> int1: the diploid happens and the crash occurs.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the crumbling does not occur hold the diploid and the crashing occurs.

the laird does not communicate.

sent1: the machilid communicates. sent2: if the trapezius is a gratuity then the laird is not a kind of a cords. sent3: the brucine is a kind of a gratuity. sent4: if the fact that the Santee does cord and it canes brandysnap is not true the trapezius is not a cord. sent5: the trapezius does communicate. sent6: if the fact that the trapezius does apologize and it is a gratuity does not hold then the laird is not a gratuity. sent7: the trapezius does cord. sent8: the trapezius is not astronomic. sent9: if something is not a kind of a gratuity then it does communicate. sent10: the trapezius is a gratuity and does cord. sent11: that something does apologize and is a kind of a gratuity is not true if the fact that it is not a cords is right. sent12: the Santee is a phi.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {C}{q} sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: {A}{if} sent4: ¬({B}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: {C}{a} sent6: ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: ¬{HH}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}x sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent12: {F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the laird does communicate.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the laird does not communicate. ; $context$ = sent1: the machilid communicates. sent2: if the trapezius is a gratuity then the laird is not a kind of a cords. sent3: the brucine is a kind of a gratuity. sent4: if the fact that the Santee does cord and it canes brandysnap is not true the trapezius is not a cord. sent5: the trapezius does communicate. sent6: if the fact that the trapezius does apologize and it is a gratuity does not hold then the laird is not a gratuity. sent7: the trapezius does cord. sent8: the trapezius is not astronomic. sent9: if something is not a kind of a gratuity then it does communicate. sent10: the trapezius is a gratuity and does cord. sent11: that something does apologize and is a kind of a gratuity is not true if the fact that it is not a cords is right. sent12: the Santee is a phi. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the trapezius is a gratuity and does cord.

the phonologist is lexicographic.

sent1: the vesicant does dishonor arrangement. sent2: there exists something such that it dishonors arrangement. sent3: the vesicant is evidentiary. sent4: the vesicant is limbic. sent5: there is something such that it is evidentiary. sent6: the phonologist is evidentiary if that the carotene is evidentiary hold. sent7: the phonologist does dishonor arrangement. sent8: if something is evidentiary then it is discernible. sent9: The arrangement does dishonor vesicant. sent10: the photometer does dishonor arrangement. sent11: something is evidentiary but not lexicographic if it does not dishonor arrangement.

{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {FL}{a} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: {A}{c} -> {A}{b} sent7: {B}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {DO}x sent9: {AA}{aa} sent10: {B}{fj} sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the phonologist is not lexicographic.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phonologist is lexicographic. ; $context$ = sent1: the vesicant does dishonor arrangement. sent2: there exists something such that it dishonors arrangement. sent3: the vesicant is evidentiary. sent4: the vesicant is limbic. sent5: there is something such that it is evidentiary. sent6: the phonologist is evidentiary if that the carotene is evidentiary hold. sent7: the phonologist does dishonor arrangement. sent8: if something is evidentiary then it is discernible. sent9: The arrangement does dishonor vesicant. sent10: the photometer does dishonor arrangement. sent11: something is evidentiary but not lexicographic if it does not dishonor arrangement. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the vesicant is evidentiary.

that if the fact that the settlement is not a kind of an unfamiliarity and it is not the pop is not true then the settlement is philhellenic does not hold.

sent1: the settlement is anastomotic if that it is not vinaceous and is not indeterminate is not correct. sent2: if something is sublittoral then it is a slush. sent3: the settlement is syntagmatic if the fact that it is year-round and it is not a kind of a pop does not hold. sent4: something that is not a kind of an unfamiliarity and does not pop is not philhellenic. sent5: if that something is not putrid and does not recoup Goudy does not hold then it is propulsive. sent6: if the fact that the settlement is not lithophytic and it is not a pop is not right it seeps. sent7: if something is unpalatable it is a summary. sent8: if the fact that something is not an unfamiliarity and is not a pop does not hold it is philhellenic. sent9: something canes cornet if it assembles. sent10: something is philhellenic if the fact that it is an unfamiliarity and it is not a pop does not hold. sent11: if the fact that something is photochemical is true then it is omnidirectional. sent12: the settlement is philhellenic if it is a pop. sent13: if that something does not recoup pyelography and it is not a kind of a popularization is not right then it does scratch. sent14: if something is a pop then it is philhellenic. sent15: the cornet is philhellenic if the fact that it is a kind of unobvious thing that is not diametral is not correct. sent16: that the bottle-grass is a waterline is not wrong if it does sputter.

¬(¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬(¬{HL}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) -> {AD}{aa} sent2: (x): {BS}x -> {HP}x sent3: ¬({II}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {HT}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{HF}x & ¬{GG}x) -> {GQ}x sent6: ¬(¬{K}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {BE}{aa} sent7: (x): {AK}x -> {HE}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): {JJ}x -> {IT}x sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (x): {CC}x -> {GR}x sent12: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{IB}x & ¬{IJ}x) -> {GB}x sent14: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent15: ¬(¬{CJ}{eh} & ¬{BI}{eh}) -> {B}{eh} sent16: {I}{je} -> {HU}{je}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if the fact that the settlement is not a kind of an unfamiliarity and it is not the pop is not true then the settlement is philhellenic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the settlement is anastomotic if that it is not vinaceous and is not indeterminate is not correct. sent2: if something is sublittoral then it is a slush. sent3: the settlement is syntagmatic if the fact that it is year-round and it is not a kind of a pop does not hold. sent4: something that is not a kind of an unfamiliarity and does not pop is not philhellenic. sent5: if that something is not putrid and does not recoup Goudy does not hold then it is propulsive. sent6: if the fact that the settlement is not lithophytic and it is not a pop is not right it seeps. sent7: if something is unpalatable it is a summary. sent8: if the fact that something is not an unfamiliarity and is not a pop does not hold it is philhellenic. sent9: something canes cornet if it assembles. sent10: something is philhellenic if the fact that it is an unfamiliarity and it is not a pop does not hold. sent11: if the fact that something is photochemical is true then it is omnidirectional. sent12: the settlement is philhellenic if it is a pop. sent13: if that something does not recoup pyelography and it is not a kind of a popularization is not right then it does scratch. sent14: if something is a pop then it is philhellenic. sent15: the cornet is philhellenic if the fact that it is a kind of unobvious thing that is not diametral is not correct. sent16: that the bottle-grass is a waterline is not wrong if it does sputter. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not an unfamiliarity and is not a pop does not hold it is philhellenic.

the amoralist is a kind of a Linux.

sent1: the cricket canes frappe if the pinscher does not canes frappe. sent2: if the amoralist is not a Linux that the cricket is not dot-com and it does not cane topsoil is incorrect. sent3: the cricket does not cane topsoil. sent4: if the cricket does cane frappe and it is a Linux then the amoralist is not a Linux. sent5: the fact that the servant is not a Linux hold. sent6: the fact that the counterirritant does not recoup modality and/or it is not a lexicography hold. sent7: the fact that the cricket is not dot-com is not incorrect. sent8: The topsoil does not cane cricket.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{AB}{b} sent4: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{ad} sent6: (¬{F}{d} v ¬{G}{d}) sent7: ¬{AA}{b} sent8: ¬{AC}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the amoralist is not a Linux.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the amoralist is a kind of a Linux. ; $context$ = sent1: the cricket canes frappe if the pinscher does not canes frappe. sent2: if the amoralist is not a Linux that the cricket is not dot-com and it does not cane topsoil is incorrect. sent3: the cricket does not cane topsoil. sent4: if the cricket does cane frappe and it is a Linux then the amoralist is not a Linux. sent5: the fact that the servant is not a Linux hold. sent6: the fact that the counterirritant does not recoup modality and/or it is not a lexicography hold. sent7: the fact that the cricket is not dot-com is not incorrect. sent8: The topsoil does not cane cricket. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the amoralist is not a Linux.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the cricket is non-dot-com thing that does not cane topsoil is wrong.; sent7 & sent3 -> int2: the cricket is not a dot-com and it does not cane topsoil.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the amoralist is not a Linux that the cricket is not dot-com and it does not cane topsoil is incorrect.

there exists something such that if it is not non-autobiographical and it is not a kind of a force it is not canicular.

sent1: there is something such that if it is both hircine and not a manual it is not a rout. sent2: there exists something such that if it does cane Steinberg and is not centralist it is a rout. sent3: if a flexible thing is not a caramel it does not leaf. sent4: there exists something such that if it is autobiographical and does force then it is not canicular. sent5: if the insemination is agrypnotic but it is not a kind of a sketch it does not force. sent6: the fact that the fact that the watercolor is fiducial hold if the watercolor recoups cracker and is not a arrogator is correct. sent7: there is something such that if that it dishonors fatigue and is not a muralist is correct then it is cryogenic.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): ({FF}x & ¬{IE}x) -> ¬{CD}x sent2: (Ex): ({GL}x & ¬{JI}x) -> {CD}x sent3: (x): ({II}x & ¬{HP}x) -> ¬{IO}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ({CL}{aa} & ¬{EH}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent6: ({AN}{dh} & ¬{GF}{dh}) -> {FD}{dh} sent7: (Ex): ({FR}x & ¬{HJ}x) -> {BA}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not non-autobiographical and it is not a kind of a force it is not canicular. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is both hircine and not a manual it is not a rout. sent2: there exists something such that if it does cane Steinberg and is not centralist it is a rout. sent3: if a flexible thing is not a caramel it does not leaf. sent4: there exists something such that if it is autobiographical and does force then it is not canicular. sent5: if the insemination is agrypnotic but it is not a kind of a sketch it does not force. sent6: the fact that the fact that the watercolor is fiducial hold if the watercolor recoups cracker and is not a arrogator is correct. sent7: there is something such that if that it dishonors fatigue and is not a muralist is correct then it is cryogenic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is autobiographical and does force then it is not canicular.

that there exists something such that if that it is retinal is not wrong it is not a label and it is a Kabul is not true.

sent1: if the bookshop is horticultural then it is not a ticking and is ignoble. sent2: if the lox is retinal then it is a kind of a label that is a Kabul. sent3: something does not granulate and is a sika if it is a kind of a cardinalate. sent4: if the lox is retinal then it is not a label and it is a Kabul. sent5: there is something such that if it is retinal then that it is a Kabul is correct. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it does impinge hardwood is true it is a kind of a constitutionalist.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: {FU}{cr} -> (¬{EK}{cr} & {CN}{cr}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {DH}x -> (¬{AJ}x & {BR}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent6: (Ex): {HM}x -> {FE}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there exists something such that if it is a kind of a cardinalate it does not granulate and is a sika.

(Ex): {DH}x -> (¬{AJ}x & {BR}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if that it is retinal is not wrong it is not a label and it is a Kabul is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bookshop is horticultural then it is not a ticking and is ignoble. sent2: if the lox is retinal then it is a kind of a label that is a Kabul. sent3: something does not granulate and is a sika if it is a kind of a cardinalate. sent4: if the lox is retinal then it is not a label and it is a Kabul. sent5: there is something such that if it is retinal then that it is a Kabul is correct. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it does impinge hardwood is true it is a kind of a constitutionalist. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the lox is retinal then it is not a label and it is a Kabul.

that the tri-iodothyronine does not cane sinning hold.

sent1: if the tri-iodothyronine does not wring then the fact that it is piezoelectric and it is not a kind of a chute is not right. sent2: something does cane sinning if that it is piezoelectric and it is not a chute is wrong. sent3: the tri-iodothyronine does not wring.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ¬{A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the tri-iodothyronine does not cane sinning hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tri-iodothyronine does not wring then the fact that it is piezoelectric and it is not a kind of a chute is not right. sent2: something does cane sinning if that it is piezoelectric and it is not a chute is wrong. sent3: the tri-iodothyronine does not wring. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the fact that the tri-iodothyronine is piezoelectric thing that is not a chute is incorrect is not incorrect it canes sinning.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: that the tri-iodothyronine is piezoelectric and does not chute is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does cane sinning if that it is piezoelectric and it is not a chute is wrong.

the fog does not occur.

sent1: the precancerousness does not occur. sent2: that the approachableness does not occur is true if the fact that the dishonoring showplace does not occur and the inconsiderableness does not occur is not right. sent3: the dishonoring Eschscholtzia does not occur and the precancerousness does not occur. sent4: if the approachableness and/or the March occurs then the fog does not occur. sent5: if the dishonoring headache occurs then that the dishonoring showplace does not occur and the inconsiderableness does not occur is wrong. sent6: the purgatorialness occurs and/or the scouring happens if the March does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{AB} sent2: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ({B} v {A}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ({DT} v {AI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the purgatorialness and/or the scouring occurs.

({DT} v {AI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fog does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the precancerousness does not occur. sent2: that the approachableness does not occur is true if the fact that the dishonoring showplace does not occur and the inconsiderableness does not occur is not right. sent3: the dishonoring Eschscholtzia does not occur and the precancerousness does not occur. sent4: if the approachableness and/or the March occurs then the fog does not occur. sent5: if the dishonoring headache occurs then that the dishonoring showplace does not occur and the inconsiderableness does not occur is wrong. sent6: the purgatorialness occurs and/or the scouring happens if the March does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the approachableness does not occur is true if the fact that the dishonoring showplace does not occur and the inconsiderableness does not occur is not right.

the fact that the obsolescence is a puncture but it is not a kind of a Bellerophon does not hold.

sent1: if that the obsolescence is unsuccessful or it is Czech or both is not true it is not a Bellerophon. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a recessive. sent3: the obsolescence dishonors reaffiliation. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a recessive the obsolescence is unsuccessful. sent5: if the metacarpal is unsuccessful the obsolescence is recessive. sent6: the obsolescence is a kind of a secureness and does not recoup Solresol. sent7: the obsolescence punctures. sent8: if something is a recessive the fact that it is not saxicolous and/or it is a spherometer is wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Czech. sent10: if there is something such that it is not recessive then the fact that the obsolescence is not unsuccessful and/or it is a Czech is incorrect. sent11: the treelet is not unsuccessful. sent12: that something punctures but it is not a Bellerophon is false if it is a recessive. sent13: if that the obsolescence does not expectorate and/or is a kind of a overbid does not hold it is not a Czech. sent14: the obsolescence is unsuccessful. sent15: the chalcocite is not a skylight if the fact that it is not a unprofitableness and/or it dishonors mayhem does not hold. sent16: that something is recessive is true. sent17: the obsolescence does not dishonor puritan. sent18: the fact that the obsolescence is not a kind of a Bellerophon is right if that it is either not unsuccessful or a Czech or both is not correct.

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

sent1: ¬({B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: {BP}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent6: ({HE}{a} & ¬{DR}{a}) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{CS}x v {GP}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{hp} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent13: ¬(¬{GB}{a} v {IS}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: {B}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{GN}{ce} v {HC}{ce}) -> ¬{I}{ce} sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: ¬{IN}{a} sent18: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the obsolescence is a kind of a puncture but it is not a Bellerophon does not hold.

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the obsolescence is a puncture but it is not a kind of a Bellerophon does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the obsolescence is unsuccessful or it is Czech or both is not true it is not a Bellerophon. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a recessive. sent3: the obsolescence dishonors reaffiliation. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a recessive the obsolescence is unsuccessful. sent5: if the metacarpal is unsuccessful the obsolescence is recessive. sent6: the obsolescence is a kind of a secureness and does not recoup Solresol. sent7: the obsolescence punctures. sent8: if something is a recessive the fact that it is not saxicolous and/or it is a spherometer is wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Czech. sent10: if there is something such that it is not recessive then the fact that the obsolescence is not unsuccessful and/or it is a Czech is incorrect. sent11: the treelet is not unsuccessful. sent12: that something punctures but it is not a Bellerophon is false if it is a recessive. sent13: if that the obsolescence does not expectorate and/or is a kind of a overbid does not hold it is not a Czech. sent14: the obsolescence is unsuccessful. sent15: the chalcocite is not a skylight if the fact that it is not a unprofitableness and/or it dishonors mayhem does not hold. sent16: that something is recessive is true. sent17: the obsolescence does not dishonor puritan. sent18: the fact that the obsolescence is not a kind of a Bellerophon is right if that it is either not unsuccessful or a Czech or both is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent10 -> int1: that the obsolescence is not unsuccessful and/or it is a Czech is not correct.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the obsolescence is not a Bellerophon.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a recessive.

that there is something such that if it does not croak it is not Ghanaian is wrong.

sent1: there is something such that if it is not a noumenon then it is not Victorian. sent2: if something is a Isurus then it is not a statement. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a worldliness then it does dishonor byte. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a sour then it is a quadruple. sent5: there is something such that if it does not transpire then it is politics. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a croak hold it is Ghanaian. sent7: there is something such that if it is not antitypic then the fact that it is pugilistic is not incorrect. sent8: there is something such that if it is unintelligible it is not a kind of a legitimacy. sent9: there exists something such that if it succumbs then the fact that it is not a neoconservatism is not false. sent10: that the amphibolite is discordant is not wrong if it is not Ghanaian. sent11: there exists something such that if it is genetic then it is not nonterritorial. sent12: the amphibolite is not a multiplex if it does cane crith. sent13: something is not astrocytic if it does not transpire. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Epicurus then it does not recoup Kahlua. sent15: something does not incinerate if it is a devilfish. sent16: if something is a croak it is not Ghanaian. sent17: if the amphibolite is not a kind of a croak then it is Ghanaian. sent18: if something does not dishonor militarist then it is not unidentifiable. sent19: something does not dishonor Vonnegut if it does not cane milord. sent20: something is not Ghanaian if it is not a croak.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬{BA}x -> ¬{FQ}x sent2: (x): {CG}x -> ¬{HJ}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AE}x -> {JE}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{EQ}x -> {FF}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{EH}x -> {K}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{IF}x -> {BM}x sent8: (Ex): {E}x -> ¬{HF}x sent9: (Ex): {JH}x -> ¬{GT}x sent10: ¬{C}{aa} -> {DR}{aa} sent11: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{CI}x sent12: {EP}{aa} -> ¬{DU}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{EH}x -> ¬{GB}x sent14: (x): ¬{JB}x -> ¬{F}x sent15: (x): {BU}x -> ¬{AF}x sent16: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent17: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent18: (x): ¬{DN}x -> ¬{D}x sent19: (x): ¬{II}x -> ¬{BL}x sent20: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does not croak it is not Ghanaian is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not a noumenon then it is not Victorian. sent2: if something is a Isurus then it is not a statement. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a worldliness then it does dishonor byte. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a sour then it is a quadruple. sent5: there is something such that if it does not transpire then it is politics. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a croak hold it is Ghanaian. sent7: there is something such that if it is not antitypic then the fact that it is pugilistic is not incorrect. sent8: there is something such that if it is unintelligible it is not a kind of a legitimacy. sent9: there exists something such that if it succumbs then the fact that it is not a neoconservatism is not false. sent10: that the amphibolite is discordant is not wrong if it is not Ghanaian. sent11: there exists something such that if it is genetic then it is not nonterritorial. sent12: the amphibolite is not a multiplex if it does cane crith. sent13: something is not astrocytic if it does not transpire. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Epicurus then it does not recoup Kahlua. sent15: something does not incinerate if it is a devilfish. sent16: if something is a croak it is not Ghanaian. sent17: if the amphibolite is not a kind of a croak then it is Ghanaian. sent18: if something does not dishonor militarist then it is not unidentifiable. sent19: something does not dishonor Vonnegut if it does not cane milord. sent20: something is not Ghanaian if it is not a croak. ; $proof$ =

sent20 -> int1: the fact that the amphibolite is not Ghanaian if the amphibolite is not a kind of a croak is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not Ghanaian if it is not a croak.

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a self-renewal and/or does pilfer it is not a exteroceptor.

sent1: if something is not postmillennial and/or it is a handstand it is not an angstrom. sent2: something is not a coralwood if it is immeasurable and/or tamed. sent3: there exists something such that if it does pilfer then it is not a kind of a exteroceptor. sent4: if either the checkroom is not a kind of a self-renewal or it pilfers or both it is a kind of a exteroceptor. sent5: there is something such that if it is not operational or naval or both then that it is not a Father hold. sent6: if that the checkroom does pilfer is not false then it is not a exteroceptor. sent7: the checkroom is not a exteroceptor if it is not a self-renewal or it pilfers or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a self-renewal or pilfers or both then it is not a exteroceptor. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it is not a self-renewal or does pilfer or both then it is a exteroceptor hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a self-renewal then it is not a kind of a exteroceptor. sent11: if the checkroom is a self-renewal and/or does pilfer then it is not a exteroceptor.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (x): (¬{HA}x v {U}x) -> ¬{EB}x sent2: (x): (¬{AE}x v {BD}x) -> ¬{HJ}x sent3: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): (¬{DL}x v {IR}x) -> ¬{GR}x sent6: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent11: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

there exists something such that if it is not postmillennial or is a handstand or both it is not an angstrom.

(Ex): (¬{HA}x v {U}x) -> ¬{EB}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a self-renewal and/or does pilfer it is not a exteroceptor. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not postmillennial and/or it is a handstand it is not an angstrom. sent2: something is not a coralwood if it is immeasurable and/or tamed. sent3: there exists something such that if it does pilfer then it is not a kind of a exteroceptor. sent4: if either the checkroom is not a kind of a self-renewal or it pilfers or both it is a kind of a exteroceptor. sent5: there is something such that if it is not operational or naval or both then that it is not a Father hold. sent6: if that the checkroom does pilfer is not false then it is not a exteroceptor. sent7: the checkroom is not a exteroceptor if it is not a self-renewal or it pilfers or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a self-renewal or pilfers or both then it is not a exteroceptor. sent9: the fact that there is something such that if it is not a self-renewal or does pilfer or both then it is a exteroceptor hold. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a self-renewal then it is not a kind of a exteroceptor. sent11: if the checkroom is a self-renewal and/or does pilfer then it is not a exteroceptor. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the checkroom is not a exteroceptor if it is not a self-renewal or it pilfers or both.

the fact that the Botox is both a smother and not a links is incorrect.

sent1: something is not a Tongan if it cracks. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a cracking that the Botox is a kind of a smother but it is not a links does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the signboard is a kind of stimulative thing that is not a kind of a brutality is wrong then it is a kind of a brutality. sent4: if something is not a cracking then it is a smother and it is not a kind of a links. sent5: either something is a hectoliter or it does not cane proofreader or both. sent6: the Botox does not crack if the signboard is both a brutality and a crack.

¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{BH}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: ¬({I}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (Ex): ({G}x v ¬{F}x) sent6: ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the grenade is not a kind of a Tongan is not false.

¬{BH}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Botox is both a smother and not a links is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a Tongan if it cracks. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a cracking that the Botox is a kind of a smother but it is not a links does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the signboard is a kind of stimulative thing that is not a kind of a brutality is wrong then it is a kind of a brutality. sent4: if something is not a cracking then it is a smother and it is not a kind of a links. sent5: either something is a hectoliter or it does not cane proofreader or both. sent6: the Botox does not crack if the signboard is both a brutality and a crack. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either something is a hectoliter or it does not cane proofreader or both.

the doubleheader does not occur.

sent1: that the dishonoring Botox happens is caused by that the doubleheader occurs and/or the jolly does not occur. sent2: the doubleheader occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ({A} v ¬{B}) -> {ER} sent2: {A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dishonoring Botox occurs.

{ER}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the doubleheader does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dishonoring Botox happens is caused by that the doubleheader occurs and/or the jolly does not occur. sent2: the doubleheader occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the doubleheader occurs.

the midgrass is a kind of a Carpinaceae.

sent1: the midgrass is not electric if the fact that the calico does dishonor yawn but it does not excuse is wrong. sent2: that the midgrass dishonors yawn and is a kind of an excuse is not correct. sent3: the calico is a kind of an electric. sent4: if something dishonors yawn and is not an excuse then it is a Carpinaceae. sent5: if the midgrass does dishonor yawn and it excuses then it is a Carpinaceae. sent6: the calico is not a kind of an electric if the midgrass excuses. sent7: the midgrass is not an excuse. sent8: if something that does dishonor yawn does excuse it is a Carpinaceae. sent9: that the midgrass is transitional but it is not insubordinate is not true.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: {B}{b} sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent5: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent6: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{AB}{a} sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}x sent9: ¬({AI}{a} & ¬{BN}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the midgrass is a kind of a Carpinaceae. ; $context$ = sent1: the midgrass is not electric if the fact that the calico does dishonor yawn but it does not excuse is wrong. sent2: that the midgrass dishonors yawn and is a kind of an excuse is not correct. sent3: the calico is a kind of an electric. sent4: if something dishonors yawn and is not an excuse then it is a Carpinaceae. sent5: if the midgrass does dishonor yawn and it excuses then it is a Carpinaceae. sent6: the calico is not a kind of an electric if the midgrass excuses. sent7: the midgrass is not an excuse. sent8: if something that does dishonor yawn does excuse it is a Carpinaceae. sent9: that the midgrass is transitional but it is not insubordinate is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something dishonors yawn and is not an excuse then it is a Carpinaceae.

that the enchanter does not recoup fondue is true.

sent1: the Savoy does recoup fondue. sent2: the hexose does recoup fondue. sent3: the sabbatia does recoup fondue. sent4: something does not impinge cathode. sent5: something recoups fondue if it is a phoebe. sent6: The fondue does recoup enchanter. sent7: the enchanter does recoup fondue. sent8: the enchanter is a kind of a hostile. sent9: the amputee recoups fondue. sent10: the bluffer does not dishonor Argonauta if the fact that the Punjabi dishonor Argonauta and it impinges cathode is not true. sent11: the bench recoups fondue. sent12: the enchanter is a kind of a sojourn. sent13: if the bluffer does not dishonor Argonauta then the drumstick is hemodynamic a sport. sent14: the enchanter does slight. sent15: that the enchanter is a validation hold.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: {A}{ee} sent2: {A}{i} sent3: {A}{hf} sent4: (Ex): ¬{G}x sent5: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: {JC}{a} sent9: {A}{eg} sent10: ¬({F}{e} & {G}{e}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent11: {A}{fj} sent12: {EG}{a} sent13: ¬{F}{d} -> ({D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent14: {BQ}{a} sent15: {AT}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the enchanter does not recoup fondue.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the enchanter does not recoup fondue is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the Savoy does recoup fondue. sent2: the hexose does recoup fondue. sent3: the sabbatia does recoup fondue. sent4: something does not impinge cathode. sent5: something recoups fondue if it is a phoebe. sent6: The fondue does recoup enchanter. sent7: the enchanter does recoup fondue. sent8: the enchanter is a kind of a hostile. sent9: the amputee recoups fondue. sent10: the bluffer does not dishonor Argonauta if the fact that the Punjabi dishonor Argonauta and it impinges cathode is not true. sent11: the bench recoups fondue. sent12: the enchanter is a kind of a sojourn. sent13: if the bluffer does not dishonor Argonauta then the drumstick is hemodynamic a sport. sent14: the enchanter does slight. sent15: that the enchanter is a validation hold. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the enchanter does recoup fondue.

the papyrus is a rainstorm.

sent1: the fact that that something is not a rainstorm and is a kind of a Rheum is true does not hold if it is a sublimity. sent2: the fact that the papyrus is not a rainstorm is not incorrect if it is not a sublimity. sent3: something is a rainstorm if the fact that it is not a rainstorm and it is a Rheum does not hold. sent4: the papyrus is not a sublimity. sent5: the servant is not returnable if it does not recoup Woodhull.

{B}{a}

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{fu} -> ¬{EE}{fu}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the papyrus is a kind of a rainstorm.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the papyrus is a rainstorm. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that something is not a rainstorm and is a kind of a Rheum is true does not hold if it is a sublimity. sent2: the fact that the papyrus is not a rainstorm is not incorrect if it is not a sublimity. sent3: something is a rainstorm if the fact that it is not a rainstorm and it is a Rheum does not hold. sent4: the papyrus is not a sublimity. sent5: the servant is not returnable if it does not recoup Woodhull. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the papyrus is not a rainstorm is not incorrect if it is not a sublimity.

the fact that there is something such that it is a dizziness that is collagenous is false.

sent1: the bathhouse is a dizziness and collagenous.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is a dizziness that is collagenous is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the bathhouse is a dizziness and collagenous. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bathhouse is a dizziness and collagenous.

the fact that the childbirth is not a moonwort but it is a Dinornithidae does not hold.

sent1: the childbirth is a doorbell. sent2: the fact that the broad-bean is a Tolectin hold. sent3: if the HDL is a Dinornithidae the fact that it is not a moonwort and is a Tolectin is not true. sent4: the fact that the childbirth is a kind of a moonwort that is a Dinornithidae is not right. sent5: the fact that the HDL is not a Tolectin and is a Dinornithidae is incorrect. sent6: if something is a Tolectin that it is a moonwort and it is a Dinornithidae does not hold. sent7: that something is not a GAD and is a bracken does not hold if it does impinge Sinbad. sent8: the fact that the nautilus is not a kind of a Hmong but it is allylic is false. sent9: the HDL masses. sent10: the fact that that the childbirth is a Tolectin is true if the HDL is a Tolectin is true. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a motorist and does learn is not right if that it is determinate is not false. sent12: that something is both not a cry and a motorist is not right if it is complimentary. sent13: the HDL is a Tolectin. sent14: the fact that the childbirth is a kind of a moonwort and is a kind of a Dinornithidae is not right if it is a kind of a Tolectin.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: {DS}{aa} sent2: {A}{bb} sent3: {AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): {IR}x -> ¬(¬{EC}x & {ID}x) sent8: ¬(¬{JI}{l} & {AK}{l}) sent9: {BB}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: (x): {T}x -> ¬(¬{JJ}x & {CB}x) sent12: (x): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{AT}x & {JJ}x) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the childbirth is not a moonwort but it is a Dinornithidae does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the childbirth is a doorbell. sent2: the fact that the broad-bean is a Tolectin hold. sent3: if the HDL is a Dinornithidae the fact that it is not a moonwort and is a Tolectin is not true. sent4: the fact that the childbirth is a kind of a moonwort that is a Dinornithidae is not right. sent5: the fact that the HDL is not a Tolectin and is a Dinornithidae is incorrect. sent6: if something is a Tolectin that it is a moonwort and it is a Dinornithidae does not hold. sent7: that something is not a GAD and is a bracken does not hold if it does impinge Sinbad. sent8: the fact that the nautilus is not a kind of a Hmong but it is allylic is false. sent9: the HDL masses. sent10: the fact that that the childbirth is a Tolectin is true if the HDL is a Tolectin is true. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a motorist and does learn is not right if that it is determinate is not false. sent12: that something is both not a cry and a motorist is not right if it is complimentary. sent13: the HDL is a Tolectin. sent14: the fact that the childbirth is a kind of a moonwort and is a kind of a Dinornithidae is not right if it is a kind of a Tolectin. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that that the childbirth is a Tolectin is true if the HDL is a Tolectin is true.

the intellectualization is not lipless.

sent1: the barony is lipless if it does recoup slingback. sent2: the barony is not a kind of a tuckahoe but it is a kind of a spreadsheet. sent3: if that something does not spring-clean but it is lipless does not hold it is not lipless. sent4: something is a kind of a dogging if it impinges hogshead. sent5: if the Lutheran does not recoup slingback and is not lipless the intellectualization is lipless. sent6: something is lipless if it remembers. sent7: that the barony is not a kind of a Hypsiprymnodon is not incorrect if it is not a kind of a tuckahoe and it is a kind of a spreadsheet. sent8: if something is not a kind of a Hypsiprymnodon then that it is both a smelter and not a glossalgia is not true. sent9: the Lutheran is not a kind of a wobble. sent10: if something does not forgive then that it does not spring-clean and is lipless does not hold. sent11: the intellectualization recoups slingback if the barony is lipless. sent12: the barony is a kind of a smelter if that the Lutheran does not remember and/or it wobbles is not true. sent13: if the anglophile is a kind of a splice then the Lutheran is a kind of a ribgrass and does not dishonor intellectualization. sent14: the Lutheran does not recoup slingback if there is something such that the fact that it is a smelter and it is not a glossalgia is wrong. sent15: the Lutheran does not forgive if it is a ribgrass and it does not dishonor intellectualization. sent16: something recoups slingback if it is a smelter. sent17: that the Lutheran does not remember or it is a wobble or both does not hold. sent18: if the barony recoups slingback then the intellectualization is lipless.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: {A}{b} -> {C}{b} sent2: (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent4: (x): {AD}x -> {JJ}x sent5: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent6: (x): {AA}x -> {C}x sent7: (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: ¬{AB}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) sent11: {C}{b} -> {A}{c} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: {L}{d} -> ({J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: ({J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) -> ¬{I}{a} sent16: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent18: {A}{b} -> {C}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the intellectualization is not lipless.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the intellectualization is not lipless. ; $context$ = sent1: the barony is lipless if it does recoup slingback. sent2: the barony is not a kind of a tuckahoe but it is a kind of a spreadsheet. sent3: if that something does not spring-clean but it is lipless does not hold it is not lipless. sent4: something is a kind of a dogging if it impinges hogshead. sent5: if the Lutheran does not recoup slingback and is not lipless the intellectualization is lipless. sent6: something is lipless if it remembers. sent7: that the barony is not a kind of a Hypsiprymnodon is not incorrect if it is not a kind of a tuckahoe and it is a kind of a spreadsheet. sent8: if something is not a kind of a Hypsiprymnodon then that it is both a smelter and not a glossalgia is not true. sent9: the Lutheran is not a kind of a wobble. sent10: if something does not forgive then that it does not spring-clean and is lipless does not hold. sent11: the intellectualization recoups slingback if the barony is lipless. sent12: the barony is a kind of a smelter if that the Lutheran does not remember and/or it wobbles is not true. sent13: if the anglophile is a kind of a splice then the Lutheran is a kind of a ribgrass and does not dishonor intellectualization. sent14: the Lutheran does not recoup slingback if there is something such that the fact that it is a smelter and it is not a glossalgia is wrong. sent15: the Lutheran does not forgive if it is a ribgrass and it does not dishonor intellectualization. sent16: something recoups slingback if it is a smelter. sent17: that the Lutheran does not remember or it is a wobble or both does not hold. sent18: if the barony recoups slingback then the intellectualization is lipless. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent17 -> int1: the barony is a smelter.; sent16 -> int2: if the fact that the barony is a smelter is true then the fact that it recoups slingback is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the barony recoups slingback is correct.; int3 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the barony is a kind of a smelter if that the Lutheran does not remember and/or it wobbles is not true.

the Hugoesqueness occurs.

sent1: the fact that the fact that the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur is not false does not hold. sent2: the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur if the Hugoesqueness does not occur. sent3: if the patronymicness does not occur the disorderliness does not occur and the dalliance does not occur. sent4: if the academicness and the iconolatry happens the Hugoesqueness does not occur. sent5: the anoxicness does not occur if the airing does not occur.

{A}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬{CA} -> (¬{AL} & ¬{BQ}) sent4: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{IJ} -> ¬{FB}

PROVED

PROVED

the Hugoesqueness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Hugoesqueness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur is not false does not hold. sent2: the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur if the Hugoesqueness does not occur. sent3: if the patronymicness does not occur the disorderliness does not occur and the dalliance does not occur. sent4: if the academicness and the iconolatry happens the Hugoesqueness does not occur. sent5: the anoxicness does not occur if the airing does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Hugoesqueness does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur if the Hugoesqueness does not occur.

both the vinaceousness and the recouping straddle occurs.

sent1: if that the naming does not occur but the vacuolateness happens is wrong the spaceflight does not occur. sent2: that both the vinaceousness and the recouping straddle happens is not true if the dishonoring sentience does not occur. sent3: the bauxiticness happens. sent4: that the impinging Baikal happens is right if the classification happens. sent5: if that the dishonoring omega-3 does not occur is not incorrect then the algorithm and the cryogenicness happens. sent6: if the dishonoring journalist occurs the dishonoring omega-3 does not occur. sent7: the vinaceousness occurs and/or the dishonoring sentience does not occur. sent8: both the vinaceousness and the dishonoring sentience happens. sent9: the dishonoring journalist occurs. sent10: if the spaceflight does not occur the non-apostolicness and the non-arenicolousness happens. sent11: if the apostolicness does not occur that the caning pullback and the classification happens is true. sent12: that the dishonoring sentience occurs is prevented by that the algorithm and the impinging Baikal occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: ¬(¬{M} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent2: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent3: {FH} sent4: {F} -> {D} sent5: ¬{N} -> ({E} & {K}) sent6: {O} -> ¬{N} sent7: ({A} v ¬{B}) sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {O} sent10: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent12: ({E} & {D}) -> ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the biogeographicness and the unmanliness occurs.

({IP} & {HG})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the vinaceousness and the recouping straddle occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the naming does not occur but the vacuolateness happens is wrong the spaceflight does not occur. sent2: that both the vinaceousness and the recouping straddle happens is not true if the dishonoring sentience does not occur. sent3: the bauxiticness happens. sent4: that the impinging Baikal happens is right if the classification happens. sent5: if that the dishonoring omega-3 does not occur is not incorrect then the algorithm and the cryogenicness happens. sent6: if the dishonoring journalist occurs the dishonoring omega-3 does not occur. sent7: the vinaceousness occurs and/or the dishonoring sentience does not occur. sent8: both the vinaceousness and the dishonoring sentience happens. sent9: the dishonoring journalist occurs. sent10: if the spaceflight does not occur the non-apostolicness and the non-arenicolousness happens. sent11: if the apostolicness does not occur that the caning pullback and the classification happens is true. sent12: that the dishonoring sentience occurs is prevented by that the algorithm and the impinging Baikal occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the vinaceousness and the dishonoring sentience happens.

the turnip is not a better.

sent1: if the turnip is a kind of a soliloquy it is a gastroenterostomy. sent2: the Siberian is hypertonic. sent3: something does not impinge boo if that it is not a Ugaritic and does impinge boo is not true. sent4: the Siberian does not dishonor digitization if that the cloudberry is exegetic but it does not dishonor digitization is not correct. sent5: something is a auricula if it is non-better thing that does dishonor digitization. sent6: the fact that something is not a Ugaritic but it does impinge boo does not hold if it is a gastroenterostomy. sent7: the house canes lacquerware but it does not impinge boo. sent8: the Siberian is not better if the turnip is a kind of a auricula and it dishonors digitization. sent9: the cyme is not a better and does dishonor digitization if there exists something such that it is exegetic. sent10: the cloudberry recoups Klein if something that does cane lacquerware does not impinge boo. sent11: that the Siberian is a auricula is not wrong. sent12: if there is something such that it does cane lacquerware and it does not recoup Klein then the Siberian is not four-wheel. sent13: if the house is four-wheel that the cloudberry is exegetic but it does not dishonor digitization is not true. sent14: if something recoups Klein that it is four-wheel is not incorrect. sent15: the cloudberry is exegetic. sent16: something canes lacquerware and does not recoup Klein if it does not impinge boo. sent17: if that the Siberian does not dishonor digitization hold then the turnip is a kind of a better and it is a auricula. sent18: if that the lacquerware does not cane lacquerware is not false the house is a kind of four-wheel thing that recoups Klein. sent19: that the Siberian does dishonor digitization is correct. sent20: That the digitization does dishonor Siberian is correct. sent21: the turnip is a soliloquy. sent22: if something is not four-wheel it is exegetic.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {K}{b} -> {I}{b} sent2: {CS}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent4: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent6: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{J}x & {H}x) sent7: ({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent8: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{gq} & {B}{gq}) sent10: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{c} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (x): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}{a} sent13: {E}{d} -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent14: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent15: {D}{c} sent16: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent17: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent18: ¬{G}{e} -> ({E}{d} & {F}{d}) sent19: {B}{a} sent20: {AA}{aa} sent21: {K}{b} sent22: (x): ¬{E}x -> {D}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cyme is a auricula.

{A}{gq}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the turnip is not a better. ; $context$ = sent1: if the turnip is a kind of a soliloquy it is a gastroenterostomy. sent2: the Siberian is hypertonic. sent3: something does not impinge boo if that it is not a Ugaritic and does impinge boo is not true. sent4: the Siberian does not dishonor digitization if that the cloudberry is exegetic but it does not dishonor digitization is not correct. sent5: something is a auricula if it is non-better thing that does dishonor digitization. sent6: the fact that something is not a Ugaritic but it does impinge boo does not hold if it is a gastroenterostomy. sent7: the house canes lacquerware but it does not impinge boo. sent8: the Siberian is not better if the turnip is a kind of a auricula and it dishonors digitization. sent9: the cyme is not a better and does dishonor digitization if there exists something such that it is exegetic. sent10: the cloudberry recoups Klein if something that does cane lacquerware does not impinge boo. sent11: that the Siberian is a auricula is not wrong. sent12: if there is something such that it does cane lacquerware and it does not recoup Klein then the Siberian is not four-wheel. sent13: if the house is four-wheel that the cloudberry is exegetic but it does not dishonor digitization is not true. sent14: if something recoups Klein that it is four-wheel is not incorrect. sent15: the cloudberry is exegetic. sent16: something canes lacquerware and does not recoup Klein if it does not impinge boo. sent17: if that the Siberian does not dishonor digitization hold then the turnip is a kind of a better and it is a auricula. sent18: if that the lacquerware does not cane lacquerware is not false the house is a kind of four-wheel thing that recoups Klein. sent19: that the Siberian does dishonor digitization is correct. sent20: That the digitization does dishonor Siberian is correct. sent21: the turnip is a soliloquy. sent22: if something is not four-wheel it is exegetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the Siberian is a auricula is not wrong.

the dishonoring meatloaf does not occur.

sent1: the caning gearshift does not occur. sent2: if the fact that not the recouping psychopathology but the centralization happens does not hold then the dishonoring meatloaf does not occur. sent3: if the neotenicness does not occur the fact that the recouping psychopathology does not occur but the centralization happens does not hold. sent4: the caning Platonism occurs but the service does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{FO} sent2: ¬(¬{A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent4: ({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dishonoring meatloaf does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the caning gearshift does not occur. sent2: if the fact that not the recouping psychopathology but the centralization happens does not hold then the dishonoring meatloaf does not occur. sent3: if the neotenicness does not occur the fact that the recouping psychopathology does not occur but the centralization happens does not hold. sent4: the caning Platonism occurs but the service does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the caning Platonism occurs but the service does not occur.

the fact that the Scandinavian does unlock Tappan and unlocks fat is not wrong.

sent1: the fat unlocks Heidegger. sent2: if the northwester does unlock Heidegger it is a partisan. sent3: the fact that that the fat is not a dominant but it is a steeple is not right is not false if the expanse unlocks Heidegger. sent4: the fat is a steeple if that it is not a tilter and it is not Nestorian is false. sent5: that if something is a kind of a dominant it does unlock fat is not false. sent6: if something is not a steeple then the fact that it does unlock Tappan and it does unlock fat does not hold. sent7: that the fat is not a tilter and is not Nestorian is wrong. sent8: that the fat is not a tilter but it is Nestorian does not hold. sent9: the Scandinavian unlocks Tappan if the fat is a steeple.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: {E}{a} sent2: {E}{fb} -> {FC}{fb} sent3: {E}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the Scandinavian does unlock Tappan and unlocks fat is incorrect.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Scandinavian does unlock Tappan and unlocks fat is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fat unlocks Heidegger. sent2: if the northwester does unlock Heidegger it is a partisan. sent3: the fact that that the fat is not a dominant but it is a steeple is not right is not false if the expanse unlocks Heidegger. sent4: the fat is a steeple if that it is not a tilter and it is not Nestorian is false. sent5: that if something is a kind of a dominant it does unlock fat is not false. sent6: if something is not a steeple then the fact that it does unlock Tappan and it does unlock fat does not hold. sent7: that the fat is not a tilter and is not Nestorian is wrong. sent8: that the fat is not a tilter but it is Nestorian does not hold. sent9: the Scandinavian unlocks Tappan if the fat is a steeple. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fat is a steeple if that it is not a tilter and it is not Nestorian is false.

the archerfish is not a hometown and eulogizes xeranthemum.

sent1: the fact that the fact that the depressive does not bargain pinto is not false if the chowder does bargain pinto but it does not nominate is true. sent2: the atom is not unplayful if it is a Nazism. sent3: something does stabilize if the fact that it is a regular and/or it is not prudent does not hold. sent4: the ceibo is teratogenic if the glucoside is altricial. sent5: the archerfish is a kind of a Nazism. sent6: the cubeb is regular. sent7: if something is a regular then the isthmus is prudent or it is not a Conospermum or both. sent8: the Chilean is not a Conospermum if the isthmus is prudent. sent9: the chowder bargains pinto but it does not nominate. sent10: if something is a Nazism it eulogizes xeranthemum. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a hometown but it does eulogize xeranthemum is not right if that it is altricial is incorrect. sent12: the archerfish is an inquest. sent13: if that something is not a Scophthalmus and is not teratogenic does not hold then it is not a hometown. sent14: something is not a end-plate if the fact that it does not bargain cubeb and it is not a brassiere is not true. sent15: if something is altricial that it is both not a Scophthalmus and not teratogenic is false. sent16: the isthmus is not a Nazism and does not eulogize xeranthemum if the cubeb is a physicist. sent17: if the depressive does not bargain pinto that it is a kind of a regular and/or it is not prudent is incorrect. sent18: if something that is not a Conospermum does not stabilize it is rhinal. sent19: the fact that the archerfish is non-spousal thing that does not leach isthmus is not true. sent20: if the Chilean is rhinal the glucoside is a kind of a Nazism that is not a physicist. sent21: the glucoside is altricial if the Chilean is a kind of a hometown. sent22: something is both rhinal and not a Conospermum if it stabilizes.

(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: ({K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{K}{e} sent2: {D}{db} -> ¬{BS}{db} sent3: (x): ¬({J}x v ¬{I}x) -> {H}x sent4: {A}{a} -> {AB}{ci} sent5: {D}{aa} sent6: {J}{d} sent7: (x): {J}x -> ({I}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) sent8: {I}{c} -> ¬{G}{b} sent9: ({K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) sent10: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent12: {IT}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (x): ¬(¬{IO}x & ¬{HS}x) -> ¬{FU}x sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: {E}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent17: ¬{K}{e} -> ¬({J}{e} v ¬{I}{e}) sent18: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent19: ¬(¬{BT}{aa} & ¬{FR}{aa}) sent20: {F}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent21: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent22: (x): {H}x -> ({F}x & ¬{G}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ceibo is not non-teratogenic.

{AB}{ci}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the archerfish is not a hometown and eulogizes xeranthemum. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the depressive does not bargain pinto is not false if the chowder does bargain pinto but it does not nominate is true. sent2: the atom is not unplayful if it is a Nazism. sent3: something does stabilize if the fact that it is a regular and/or it is not prudent does not hold. sent4: the ceibo is teratogenic if the glucoside is altricial. sent5: the archerfish is a kind of a Nazism. sent6: the cubeb is regular. sent7: if something is a regular then the isthmus is prudent or it is not a Conospermum or both. sent8: the Chilean is not a Conospermum if the isthmus is prudent. sent9: the chowder bargains pinto but it does not nominate. sent10: if something is a Nazism it eulogizes xeranthemum. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a hometown but it does eulogize xeranthemum is not right if that it is altricial is incorrect. sent12: the archerfish is an inquest. sent13: if that something is not a Scophthalmus and is not teratogenic does not hold then it is not a hometown. sent14: something is not a end-plate if the fact that it does not bargain cubeb and it is not a brassiere is not true. sent15: if something is altricial that it is both not a Scophthalmus and not teratogenic is false. sent16: the isthmus is not a Nazism and does not eulogize xeranthemum if the cubeb is a physicist. sent17: if the depressive does not bargain pinto that it is a kind of a regular and/or it is not prudent is incorrect. sent18: if something that is not a Conospermum does not stabilize it is rhinal. sent19: the fact that the archerfish is non-spousal thing that does not leach isthmus is not true. sent20: if the Chilean is rhinal the glucoside is a kind of a Nazism that is not a physicist. sent21: the glucoside is altricial if the Chilean is a kind of a hometown. sent22: something is both rhinal and not a Conospermum if it stabilizes. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is altricial that it is both not a Scophthalmus and not teratogenic is false.

the conditioning does not occur.

sent1: the swatting or the urinariness or both happens. sent2: the unlocking postgraduate occurs. sent3: that the landscaping occurs hold. sent4: the anticlimacticness occurs if that both the non-anticlimacticness and the EW happens is not true. sent5: the EW and the hurling occurs. sent6: the fact that the inorganicness and the ailing occurs hold if the isolation occurs. sent7: the fact that both the non-anticlimacticness and the EW happens does not hold if the organic does not occur. sent8: that the conservancy occurs is not false. sent9: the tear does not occur. sent10: the pocket and the debuting happens. sent11: if the diaphoretic does not occur the unlocking metharbital does not occur and the urinariness does not occur. sent12: if the swat does not occur then that the ailing and the isolation happens is not correct. sent13: if the unlocking metharbital does not occur and the urinariness does not occur that the swat does not occur hold. sent14: the allelicness does not occur. sent15: the apneicness occurs if the hurling occurs. sent16: that the unlocking L-plate occurs is prevented by that the chaoticness occurs or the eulogizing AWOL does not occur or both. sent17: the nonnativeness and the roofing occurs. sent18: the conditioning occurs and the EW occurs if the hurl does not occur. sent19: the diaphoreticness is prevented by that the unlocking L-plate does not occur. sent20: the EW occurs. sent21: the organic and the ailing occurs.

¬{E}

sent1: ({H} v {I}) sent2: {CJ} sent3: {ER} sent4: ¬(¬{AM} & {A}) -> {AM} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {G} -> (¬{D} & {F}) sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{AM} & {A}) sent8: {GR} sent9: ¬{BJ} sent10: ({HH} & {DF}) sent11: ¬{K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) sent12: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent13: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} sent14: ¬{II} sent15: {B} -> {C} sent16: ({N} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent17: ({HB} & {FL}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ({E} & {A}) sent19: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent20: {A} sent21: ({D} & {F})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

both the unlocking metharbital and the anticlimacticness occurs.

({J} & {AM})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the conditioning does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the swatting or the urinariness or both happens. sent2: the unlocking postgraduate occurs. sent3: that the landscaping occurs hold. sent4: the anticlimacticness occurs if that both the non-anticlimacticness and the EW happens is not true. sent5: the EW and the hurling occurs. sent6: the fact that the inorganicness and the ailing occurs hold if the isolation occurs. sent7: the fact that both the non-anticlimacticness and the EW happens does not hold if the organic does not occur. sent8: that the conservancy occurs is not false. sent9: the tear does not occur. sent10: the pocket and the debuting happens. sent11: if the diaphoretic does not occur the unlocking metharbital does not occur and the urinariness does not occur. sent12: if the swat does not occur then that the ailing and the isolation happens is not correct. sent13: if the unlocking metharbital does not occur and the urinariness does not occur that the swat does not occur hold. sent14: the allelicness does not occur. sent15: the apneicness occurs if the hurling occurs. sent16: that the unlocking L-plate occurs is prevented by that the chaoticness occurs or the eulogizing AWOL does not occur or both. sent17: the nonnativeness and the roofing occurs. sent18: the conditioning occurs and the EW occurs if the hurl does not occur. sent19: the diaphoreticness is prevented by that the unlocking L-plate does not occur. sent20: the EW occurs. sent21: the organic and the ailing occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the EW and the hurling occurs.

that if the eulogizing parcel does not occur then the eulogizing Fez does not occur and the lobbyism happens is incorrect.

sent1: the Iranian occurs and the chaetognathanness occurs. sent2: if the eulogizing parcel does not occur then the matriculation does not occur. sent3: if the eulogizing parcel does not occur both the eulogizing Fez and the lobbyism happens. sent4: that the matriculation does not occur triggers that the eulogizing Fez does not occur and the lobbyism occurs. sent5: the lobbyism occurs if the eulogizing parcel does not occur.

¬(¬{A} -> (¬{C} & {D}))

sent1: ({IQ} & {AR}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{A} -> ({C} & {D}) sent4: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent5: ¬{A} -> {D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if the eulogizing parcel does not occur then the eulogizing Fez does not occur and the lobbyism happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Iranian occurs and the chaetognathanness occurs. sent2: if the eulogizing parcel does not occur then the matriculation does not occur. sent3: if the eulogizing parcel does not occur both the eulogizing Fez and the lobbyism happens. sent4: that the matriculation does not occur triggers that the eulogizing Fez does not occur and the lobbyism occurs. sent5: the lobbyism occurs if the eulogizing parcel does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the eulogizing parcel does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the matriculation does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the eulogizing Fez does not occur but the lobbyism occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the eulogizing parcel does not occur then the matriculation does not occur.

the fact that that the firebrat is not emphysematous is not incorrect if the firebrat is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile does not hold.

sent1: the firebrat is emphysematous if it is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent2: something that is not a kind of a Siberian does not plumb. sent3: if something is a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile the fact that it is not emphysematous is not false. sent4: if something does not eulogize transmutation it does not bargain buckram. sent5: the atmosphere is not a kind of a hemorrhoid if it is not an orangutan. sent6: if the firebrat is not a belted it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent7: something does not consult if it is not anatomic. sent8: something does not unlock coordinating if it is not a quinone. sent9: the padlock is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile if it is not eolithic. sent10: that something is emphysematous is not incorrect if it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent11: something that does not unlock Giraffidae is not a shore. sent12: the fact that something is not a kind of a Varuna if it is not a Callithrix is not wrong. sent13: if the bark does not unlock Giraffidae then it is a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent14: that something is not emphysematous is right if it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent15: if the firebrat is not a oxidase it does not bargain decarboxylase. sent16: if the firebrat is a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile it is not emphysematous. sent17: if the esophagus is not baptismal it is not emphysematous. sent18: if the fossa does not unlock foremother it is not a Pomolobus. sent19: if something is not a kieserite it does not unlock Tappan.

¬(¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa})

sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{GD}x -> ¬{HR}x sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{ET}x sent5: ¬{HA}{dk} -> ¬{AE}{dk} sent6: ¬{CB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{FL}x -> ¬{BS}x sent8: (x): ¬{AL}x -> ¬{IP}x sent9: ¬{FD}{ja} -> ¬{B}{ja} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent11: (x): ¬{GR}x -> ¬{AU}x sent12: (x): ¬{CK}x -> ¬{DE}x sent13: ¬{GR}{ij} -> {B}{ij} sent14: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent15: ¬{IN}{aa} -> ¬{GJ}{aa} sent16: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent17: ¬{GQ}{jg} -> ¬{C}{jg} sent18: ¬{AK}{aq} -> ¬{EF}{aq} sent19: (x): ¬{GH}x -> ¬{O}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the firebrat is not emphysematous is not incorrect if the firebrat is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the firebrat is emphysematous if it is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent2: something that is not a kind of a Siberian does not plumb. sent3: if something is a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile the fact that it is not emphysematous is not false. sent4: if something does not eulogize transmutation it does not bargain buckram. sent5: the atmosphere is not a kind of a hemorrhoid if it is not an orangutan. sent6: if the firebrat is not a belted it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent7: something does not consult if it is not anatomic. sent8: something does not unlock coordinating if it is not a quinone. sent9: the padlock is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile if it is not eolithic. sent10: that something is emphysematous is not incorrect if it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent11: something that does not unlock Giraffidae is not a shore. sent12: the fact that something is not a kind of a Varuna if it is not a Callithrix is not wrong. sent13: if the bark does not unlock Giraffidae then it is a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent14: that something is not emphysematous is right if it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. sent15: if the firebrat is not a oxidase it does not bargain decarboxylase. sent16: if the firebrat is a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile it is not emphysematous. sent17: if the esophagus is not baptismal it is not emphysematous. sent18: if the fossa does not unlock foremother it is not a Pomolobus. sent19: if something is not a kieserite it does not unlock Tappan. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that something is not emphysematous is right if it is not a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

the fact that the inessential happens and the proctoscopy does not occur is false.

sent1: the unlocking Father does not occur. sent2: if the grip occurs but the justification does not occur then the circularizing does not occur. sent3: the fact that the birefringence happens hold. sent4: the eulogizing paperknife is prevented by that the birefringence occurs and the malpractice happens. sent5: the gripping occurs. sent6: that the inessential but not the proctoscopy occurs is not true if the eulogizing paperknife does not occur. sent7: if the birefringence does not occur the inessential but not the proctoscopy occurs. sent8: if the inessentialness does not occur the fact that the fact that the malpractice but not the eulogizing paperknife occurs is not correct is correct. sent9: if the circularizing does not occur then the proctoscopy does not occur and the inessential does not occur. sent10: if the malpractice does not occur then both the unfashionableness and the birefringence occurs.

¬({D} & ¬{E})

sent1: ¬{BF} sent2: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent3: {A} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {H} sent6: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent8: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent9: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent10: ¬{B} -> ({BP} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the unfashionableness happens.

{BP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the inessential happens and the proctoscopy does not occur is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the unlocking Father does not occur. sent2: if the grip occurs but the justification does not occur then the circularizing does not occur. sent3: the fact that the birefringence happens hold. sent4: the eulogizing paperknife is prevented by that the birefringence occurs and the malpractice happens. sent5: the gripping occurs. sent6: that the inessential but not the proctoscopy occurs is not true if the eulogizing paperknife does not occur. sent7: if the birefringence does not occur the inessential but not the proctoscopy occurs. sent8: if the inessentialness does not occur the fact that the fact that the malpractice but not the eulogizing paperknife occurs is not correct is correct. sent9: if the circularizing does not occur then the proctoscopy does not occur and the inessential does not occur. sent10: if the malpractice does not occur then both the unfashionableness and the birefringence occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the gripping occurs.

the bench is not a kind of a doctor and it does not plagiarize.

sent1: the conveyance is not a chairmanship. sent2: if that the conveyance is retinal and/or it is incautious is incorrect it is not a doctor. sent3: that the conveyance either is retinal or is incautious or both is not right if it is not a chairmanship.

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bench is not a kind of a doctor and it does not plagiarize. ; $context$ = sent1: the conveyance is not a chairmanship. sent2: if that the conveyance is retinal and/or it is incautious is incorrect it is not a doctor. sent3: that the conveyance either is retinal or is incautious or both is not right if it is not a chairmanship. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the conveyance either is retinal or is incautious or both is not right if it is not a chairmanship.

that the criminologist is atonal and/or it is not a kind of a Alexandrian is not correct.

sent1: if that something is both not a saxifrage and antiapartheid is incorrect then it is a saxifrage. sent2: if the sedative does not spice it is atonal and it bargains timekeeper. sent3: if the sedative is a kind of a saxifrage the fact that the criminologist is not an upstage but it is Alexandrian does not hold. sent4: the criminologist is atonal and/or it is a Alexandrian. sent5: if something is not a saxifrage then it is not Alexandrian. sent6: everything is antiapartheid. sent7: the timekeeper is non-atonal. sent8: if something is not an upstage then it is not atonal. sent9: if the Hindu is a chantry then it does clapboard. sent10: the criminologist is not upstage if the fact that the sedative is not a kind of an upstage and it is not a saxifrage does not hold. sent11: if that the fact that the criminologist does not upstage but it is a kind of a Alexandrian does not hold is right then the African is not an upstage. sent12: the Hindu is a chantry. sent13: the criminologist upstages. sent14: if the criminologist is an upstage it is not a saxifrage. sent15: the sedative is not a kind of a spice if that the charioteer does not spice or unlocks founder or both does not hold. sent16: if the criminologist is a kind of a end-plate then it does not unlock paving.

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {E}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬{G}{b} -> ({D}{b} & {F}{b}) sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): {E}x sent7: ¬{D}{an} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{D}x sent9: {J}{d} -> {I}{d} sent10: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{ja} sent12: {J}{d} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: ¬(¬{G}{c} v {H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent16: {EQ}{a} -> ¬{CR}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the criminologist is atonal and/or not Alexandrian is not right.

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the criminologist is atonal and/or it is not a kind of a Alexandrian is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is both not a saxifrage and antiapartheid is incorrect then it is a saxifrage. sent2: if the sedative does not spice it is atonal and it bargains timekeeper. sent3: if the sedative is a kind of a saxifrage the fact that the criminologist is not an upstage but it is Alexandrian does not hold. sent4: the criminologist is atonal and/or it is a Alexandrian. sent5: if something is not a saxifrage then it is not Alexandrian. sent6: everything is antiapartheid. sent7: the timekeeper is non-atonal. sent8: if something is not an upstage then it is not atonal. sent9: if the Hindu is a chantry then it does clapboard. sent10: the criminologist is not upstage if the fact that the sedative is not a kind of an upstage and it is not a saxifrage does not hold. sent11: if that the fact that the criminologist does not upstage but it is a kind of a Alexandrian does not hold is right then the African is not an upstage. sent12: the Hindu is a chantry. sent13: the criminologist upstages. sent14: if the criminologist is an upstage it is not a saxifrage. sent15: the sedative is not a kind of a spice if that the charioteer does not spice or unlocks founder or both does not hold. sent16: if the criminologist is a kind of a end-plate then it does not unlock paving. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the criminologist is not a saxifrage.; sent5 -> int2: if that the criminologist is not a saxifrage hold then it is not Alexandrian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the criminologist is not a kind of a Alexandrian hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the criminologist is an upstage it is not a saxifrage.

the eardrum is praetorian.

sent1: the siderocyte does not bargain stob. sent2: if something does not unlock constriction the fact that it is not Hebridean and it does bargain stob is not correct. sent3: the hemstitch is praetorian if the siderocyte does bargain stob. sent4: The stob does not bargain siderocyte. sent5: that the siderocyte does bargain stob is not wrong if the fact that the eardrum is non-Hebridean thing that does bargain stob is wrong. sent6: if something is not morbilliform but it is wigless it is praetorian.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{gk} sent4: ¬{AC}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the hemstitch is praetorian.

{B}{gk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the eardrum is praetorian. ; $context$ = sent1: the siderocyte does not bargain stob. sent2: if something does not unlock constriction the fact that it is not Hebridean and it does bargain stob is not correct. sent3: the hemstitch is praetorian if the siderocyte does bargain stob. sent4: The stob does not bargain siderocyte. sent5: that the siderocyte does bargain stob is not wrong if the fact that the eardrum is non-Hebridean thing that does bargain stob is wrong. sent6: if something is not morbilliform but it is wigless it is praetorian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not morbilliform but it is wigless it is praetorian.

the fact that the col is nonexistent and it leaches Italy is not right.

sent1: if there are nonexistent things then that the col is not nonexistent and is not a whole does not hold. sent2: if the prototherian is not fertile the patroller is a lcm. sent3: there exists something such that it is nonexistent. sent4: if the patroller is a lcm then the col does leach Italy. sent5: if that the col is not auscultatory and it is non-whole does not hold then that it is auscultatory is right. sent6: if the patroller is not whole the col is a lcm. sent7: the fact that something is nonexistent and it leaches Italy is false if the fact that it is not fertile is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is a lcm. sent9: something does leach Italy. sent10: if that something is not nonexistent and is not whole is false then it is nonexistent. sent11: the patroller is weatherly. sent12: the fact that the col is both nonexistent and not whole is not true. sent13: the prototherian is not fertile. sent14: the fact that the col is a kind of nonexistent thing that is not a whole is not true if something is nonexistent. sent15: that the counterglow is not a lcm and it is not wasteful is wrong. sent16: the fact that the col is non-whole thing that is not a lcm is false. sent17: the col is fertile if that the prototherian does not leach Italy is right.

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (Ex): {D}x sent4: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent5: ¬(¬{DO}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> {DO}{c} sent6: ¬{F}{b} -> {B}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent8: (Ex): {B}x sent9: (Ex): {C}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent11: {GP}{b} sent12: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: (x): {D}x -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent15: ¬(¬{B}{hu} & ¬{AJ}{hu}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent17: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the col is nonexistent and it does leach Italy is incorrect.

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the col is nonexistent and it leaches Italy is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if there are nonexistent things then that the col is not nonexistent and is not a whole does not hold. sent2: if the prototherian is not fertile the patroller is a lcm. sent3: there exists something such that it is nonexistent. sent4: if the patroller is a lcm then the col does leach Italy. sent5: if that the col is not auscultatory and it is non-whole does not hold then that it is auscultatory is right. sent6: if the patroller is not whole the col is a lcm. sent7: the fact that something is nonexistent and it leaches Italy is false if the fact that it is not fertile is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is a lcm. sent9: something does leach Italy. sent10: if that something is not nonexistent and is not whole is false then it is nonexistent. sent11: the patroller is weatherly. sent12: the fact that the col is both nonexistent and not whole is not true. sent13: the prototherian is not fertile. sent14: the fact that the col is a kind of nonexistent thing that is not a whole is not true if something is nonexistent. sent15: that the counterglow is not a lcm and it is not wasteful is wrong. sent16: the fact that the col is non-whole thing that is not a lcm is false. sent17: the col is fertile if that the prototherian does not leach Italy is right. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent13 -> int1: the patroller is a lcm.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the col does leach Italy is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int3: if the fact that the col is not nonexistent and it is not a whole does not hold it is nonexistent.; sent3 & sent1 -> int4: that the col is not nonexistent and not whole is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the col is nonexistent is not incorrect.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the prototherian is not fertile the patroller is a lcm.

there exists something such that that it does swerve and is a serology does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the sadomasochist does bargain foremother and swerves is incorrect if there is something such that it bargains variedness. sent2: something is a swerve and it is a kind of a serology. sent3: there exists something such that it attorns. sent4: something unlocks workpiece. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a chess and it does bargain retread is not true. sent6: something does not bargain pipeclay if it is not a Morpheus and does not swerve. sent7: there exists something such that it does bargain Akkadian. sent8: there is something such that it overjoys. sent9: something bargains misprint. sent10: if something bargains pipeclay then the fact that the pipeclay is a swerve and a serology is wrong. sent11: the fact that the pipeclay is protozoal and it is a serology is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it bargains pipeclay. sent13: there is something such that it is conditional. sent14: something is a Musophagidae. sent15: if there exists something such that it does unlock Georgetown then the fact that the pipeclay is Bayesian and it scratches is incorrect. sent16: something is anatomic and is prospective.

(Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x)

sent1: (x): {FE}x -> ¬({DD}{db} & {B}{db}) sent2: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent3: (Ex): {BK}x sent4: (Ex): {HJ}x sent5: (Ex): ¬({EG}x & {IR}x) sent6: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent7: (Ex): {GI}x sent8: (Ex): {BF}x sent9: (Ex): {FR}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬({HQ}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: (Ex): {A}x sent13: (Ex): {GJ}x sent14: (Ex): {GO}x sent15: (x): {FS}x -> ¬({EA}{a} & {GT}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ({ES}x & {IA}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pipeclay is a serology and eulogizes Leningrad is not right.

¬({C}{a} & {GM}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it does swerve and is a serology does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the sadomasochist does bargain foremother and swerves is incorrect if there is something such that it bargains variedness. sent2: something is a swerve and it is a kind of a serology. sent3: there exists something such that it attorns. sent4: something unlocks workpiece. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a chess and it does bargain retread is not true. sent6: something does not bargain pipeclay if it is not a Morpheus and does not swerve. sent7: there exists something such that it does bargain Akkadian. sent8: there is something such that it overjoys. sent9: something bargains misprint. sent10: if something bargains pipeclay then the fact that the pipeclay is a swerve and a serology is wrong. sent11: the fact that the pipeclay is protozoal and it is a serology is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it bargains pipeclay. sent13: there is something such that it is conditional. sent14: something is a Musophagidae. sent15: if there exists something such that it does unlock Georgetown then the fact that the pipeclay is Bayesian and it scratches is incorrect. sent16: something is anatomic and is prospective. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the pipeclay is a swerve and is a serology is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it bargains pipeclay.

there exists something such that if it is a sensibility then it does not unlock Aristotelianism and it is a leisured.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a synchromesh it is not a Virginia. sent2: the adsorbate does not unlock Aristotelianism and is a leisured if it is a kind of a sensibility. sent3: the adsorbate is not caudal but it is anticyclonic if it is a sensibility. sent4: the siderocyte is not precise but it is not non-blackbird if the fact that it is not non-immanent is right. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a sensibility is not false it does unlock Aristotelianism and is a leisured. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a sensibility it is a kind of a leisured. sent7: the adsorbate is not prognathous but it is awnless if the fact that it is a kind of a pitched is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a sensibility that it does not unlock Aristotelianism is not incorrect. sent9: there is something such that if it is a pinite then the fact that it is a halyard that is a kind of a Palestine is correct. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a games-master is not wrong it is not a shopaholic and is ipsilateral. sent11: if the adsorbate is a kind of a sensibility then it is a kind of a leisured. sent12: if the adsorbate is a sensibility it unlocks Aristotelianism and it is a leisured. sent13: something that unlocks Aristotelianism is both not a Verbascum and forceful. sent14: something is not a kind of an endocrine but it is a Mercator if that it groups is correct.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): {GT}x -> ¬{BH}x sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {A}{aa} -> (¬{II}{aa} & {HH}{aa}) sent4: {AJ}{ft} -> (¬{IN}{ft} & {CD}{ft}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent7: {R}{aa} -> (¬{HD}{aa} & {AG}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent9: (Ex): {JD}x -> ({EI}x & {FI}x) sent10: (Ex): {CT}x -> (¬{GK}x & {GL}x) sent11: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {AA}x -> (¬{CR}x & {FP}x) sent14: (x): {FU}x -> (¬{DG}x & {GC}x)

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that if that it is a kind of a grouping is not incorrect then it is not an endocrine and it is a kind of a Mercator.

(Ex): {FU}x -> (¬{DG}x & {GC}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a sensibility then it does not unlock Aristotelianism and it is a leisured. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a synchromesh it is not a Virginia. sent2: the adsorbate does not unlock Aristotelianism and is a leisured if it is a kind of a sensibility. sent3: the adsorbate is not caudal but it is anticyclonic if it is a sensibility. sent4: the siderocyte is not precise but it is not non-blackbird if the fact that it is not non-immanent is right. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a sensibility is not false it does unlock Aristotelianism and is a leisured. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a sensibility it is a kind of a leisured. sent7: the adsorbate is not prognathous but it is awnless if the fact that it is a kind of a pitched is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a sensibility that it does not unlock Aristotelianism is not incorrect. sent9: there is something such that if it is a pinite then the fact that it is a halyard that is a kind of a Palestine is correct. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a games-master is not wrong it is not a shopaholic and is ipsilateral. sent11: if the adsorbate is a kind of a sensibility then it is a kind of a leisured. sent12: if the adsorbate is a sensibility it unlocks Aristotelianism and it is a leisured. sent13: something that unlocks Aristotelianism is both not a Verbascum and forceful. sent14: something is not a kind of an endocrine but it is a Mercator if that it groups is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the adsorbate does not unlock Aristotelianism and is a leisured if it is a kind of a sensibility.

that either the Stern is a Tofieldia or it is not a Japheth or both is not correct.

sent1: the racer is a kind of a sawmill. sent2: if the racer is a sawmill the anaspid is not ballistic. sent3: the Stern is not a Tofieldia. sent4: the anaspid is not a kind of a sawmill if the racer is a Bahai and it is a kind of a sawmill. sent5: the jumble is not ballistic. sent6: if the bluethroat is not a Tofieldia then the Stern is not a kind of a Tofieldia. sent7: something that is not ballistic is a kind of a Tofieldia and/or is not a Japheth. sent8: if the bluethroat is not a kind of a Tofieldia that the Stern is a kind of a Tofieldia and/or it is not a Japheth is incorrect. sent9: if the Stern is a sawmill then the racer is a Japheth. sent10: the anaspid is a Tofieldia if the bluethroat is ballistic.

¬({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c})

sent1: {C}{d} sent2: {C}{d} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{c} sent4: ({F}{d} & {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent5: ¬{B}{db} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x v ¬{D}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent9: {C}{c} -> {D}{d} sent10: {B}{a} -> {A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Stern is a Tofieldia and/or it is not a Japheth.

({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that either the Stern is a Tofieldia or it is not a Japheth or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the racer is a kind of a sawmill. sent2: if the racer is a sawmill the anaspid is not ballistic. sent3: the Stern is not a Tofieldia. sent4: the anaspid is not a kind of a sawmill if the racer is a Bahai and it is a kind of a sawmill. sent5: the jumble is not ballistic. sent6: if the bluethroat is not a Tofieldia then the Stern is not a kind of a Tofieldia. sent7: something that is not ballistic is a kind of a Tofieldia and/or is not a Japheth. sent8: if the bluethroat is not a kind of a Tofieldia that the Stern is a kind of a Tofieldia and/or it is not a Japheth is incorrect. sent9: if the Stern is a sawmill then the racer is a Japheth. sent10: the anaspid is a Tofieldia if the bluethroat is ballistic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the racer is a sawmill the anaspid is not ballistic.

the blinks does not unbosom.

sent1: there exists something such that it is afebrile. sent2: the schrod is not a kind of a raper. sent3: the blinks is not non-Argive but it does not unbosom if the schrod is not a kind of a non-Argive. sent4: something does not eulogize Gaskell. sent5: the schrod is a Argive if the Herder is not a Argive. sent6: there exists something such that it is Argive. sent7: the schrod is Argive. sent8: the Herder is a kind of a archiannelid and is not a nursed. sent9: if the blinks is a Argive that does not eulogize tilter then the Herder does not unbosom. sent10: something is a Argive and it does eulogize Gaskell if it does not eulogize tilter. sent11: if the blinks does eulogize tilter and does not unbosom the schrod is not Argive. sent12: there exists something such that it eulogizes Gaskell. sent13: the blinks does unbosom if the fact that the Herder does unbosom hold. sent14: the schrod does not eulogize tilter if it does not eulogize tilter or it is not ceric or both. sent15: if something does not eulogize Gaskell the Herder is not a Argive. sent16: something is not a kind of a Argive. sent17: something does not eulogize tilter. sent18: that the blinks does not unbosom is not wrong if the schrod is a Argive that does not eulogize tilter. sent19: the blinks is not chlorophyllose. sent20: if the Herder is not Argive then the schrod is a kind of Argive thing that does not eulogize tilter.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: (Ex): {BC}x sent2: ¬{DQ}{b} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: {B}{b} sent8: ({JI}{a} & ¬{CB}{a}) sent9: ({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent11: ({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (Ex): {A}x sent13: {C}{a} -> {C}{c} sent14: (¬{D}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent17: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent18: ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent19: ¬{BT}{c} sent20: ¬{B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the blinks unbosoms.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the blinks does not unbosom. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is afebrile. sent2: the schrod is not a kind of a raper. sent3: the blinks is not non-Argive but it does not unbosom if the schrod is not a kind of a non-Argive. sent4: something does not eulogize Gaskell. sent5: the schrod is a Argive if the Herder is not a Argive. sent6: there exists something such that it is Argive. sent7: the schrod is Argive. sent8: the Herder is a kind of a archiannelid and is not a nursed. sent9: if the blinks is a Argive that does not eulogize tilter then the Herder does not unbosom. sent10: something is a Argive and it does eulogize Gaskell if it does not eulogize tilter. sent11: if the blinks does eulogize tilter and does not unbosom the schrod is not Argive. sent12: there exists something such that it eulogizes Gaskell. sent13: the blinks does unbosom if the fact that the Herder does unbosom hold. sent14: the schrod does not eulogize tilter if it does not eulogize tilter or it is not ceric or both. sent15: if something does not eulogize Gaskell the Herder is not a Argive. sent16: something is not a kind of a Argive. sent17: something does not eulogize tilter. sent18: that the blinks does not unbosom is not wrong if the schrod is a Argive that does not eulogize tilter. sent19: the blinks is not chlorophyllose. sent20: if the Herder is not Argive then the schrod is a kind of Argive thing that does not eulogize tilter. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: that the Herder is not a Argive is not wrong.; sent20 & int1 -> int2: the schrod is a kind of Argive thing that does not eulogize tilter.; sent18 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Gaskell.

the mangosteen is a Haworth and a mamey.

sent1: if the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial then the mangosteen is a Haworth. sent2: the Milk is not a mamey if there is something such that that it is a mamey and does not blast is false. sent3: the fact that something is a mamey that is not a blasted is incorrect if it is not a Haworth. sent4: something that is a kind of a warren either is a dock or is not a kind of a blasted or both. sent5: if either the anime is a dock or it does not blast or both it is not a kind of a mamey. sent6: the Milk does not mismarry. sent7: if the anime does not blast then the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial. sent8: the louvar is intramolecular. sent9: if the Milk does mismarry and does not bargain marsupial the mangosteen is a Haworth. sent10: the anime is not a kind of a blasted. sent11: if the louvar is intramolecular then that it is both saprobic and not a mask does not hold. sent12: the Milk is a warren if the cine-camera is a kind of non-endergonic a mark. sent13: if the fact that the louvar is saprobic but not a mask does not hold it is a Lugosi. sent14: something is not endergonic and marks if it is prodromal. sent15: if the Milk is a warren the anime is a warren. sent16: the Milk does not mismarry if the anime is not a blasted.

({B}{c} & {C}{c})

sent1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent2: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x v ¬{A}x) sent5: ({D}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: {L}{e} sent9: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{c} sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: {L}{e} -> ¬({J}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) sent12: (¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) -> {E}{b} sent13: ¬({J}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) -> {I}{e} sent14: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & {F}x) sent15: {E}{b} -> {E}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the mangosteen is a Haworth and it is a kind of a mamey does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mangosteen is a Haworth and a mamey. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial then the mangosteen is a Haworth. sent2: the Milk is not a mamey if there is something such that that it is a mamey and does not blast is false. sent3: the fact that something is a mamey that is not a blasted is incorrect if it is not a Haworth. sent4: something that is a kind of a warren either is a dock or is not a kind of a blasted or both. sent5: if either the anime is a dock or it does not blast or both it is not a kind of a mamey. sent6: the Milk does not mismarry. sent7: if the anime does not blast then the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial. sent8: the louvar is intramolecular. sent9: if the Milk does mismarry and does not bargain marsupial the mangosteen is a Haworth. sent10: the anime is not a kind of a blasted. sent11: if the louvar is intramolecular then that it is both saprobic and not a mask does not hold. sent12: the Milk is a warren if the cine-camera is a kind of non-endergonic a mark. sent13: if the fact that the louvar is saprobic but not a mask does not hold it is a Lugosi. sent14: something is not endergonic and marks if it is prodromal. sent15: if the Milk is a warren the anime is a warren. sent16: the Milk does not mismarry if the anime is not a blasted. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the anime does not blast then the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial.

the heist happens.

sent1: that the royalism does not occur and the leaching tying occurs is triggered by that the gingivalness happens. sent2: either the non-katabaticness or that the eulogizing cords does not occur or both is brought about by that the coexisting does not occur. sent3: that the batholithicness happens is triggered by that the non-algoidness and the unlocking whitewash happens. sent4: both the non-Mesozoicness and the eulogizing BPH happens. sent5: the fact that that the heist occurs is brought about by that the batholithicness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the algoidness does not occur. sent7: that the unlocking Kurdish does not occur yields that the reenlistment occurs and the unlocking mintmark happens. sent8: the echo occurs. sent9: if the temperamentalness does not occur then both the batholithicness and the heist happens. sent10: the coexisting does not occur if both the leaching tying and the reenlistment happens. sent11: that not the unlocking whitewash but the algoidness happens is false if the batholithicness does not occur. sent12: the fact that not the piloting but the magistracy happens is not wrong. sent13: the fact that the rain occurs is not incorrect. sent14: the non-temperamentalness is brought about by that the katabaticness does not occur and/or that the eulogizing cords does not occur. sent15: the unlocking whitewash happens. sent16: both the non-subclavianness and the invulnerableness occurs. sent17: if the katabaticness does not occur then the non-temperamentalness and the non-batholithicness happens. sent18: the fact that the gingivalness occurs is not wrong. sent19: the entering happens.

{D}

sent1: {N} -> (¬{M} & {I}) sent2: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} v ¬{G}) sent3: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {C} sent4: (¬{CS} & {AU}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent8: {GB} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent10: ({I} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent11: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent12: (¬{AB} & {HM}) sent13: {U} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent15: {B} sent16: (¬{ET} & {EN}) sent17: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{C}) sent18: {N} sent19: {GP}

PROVED

PROVED

the heist does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heist happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the royalism does not occur and the leaching tying occurs is triggered by that the gingivalness happens. sent2: either the non-katabaticness or that the eulogizing cords does not occur or both is brought about by that the coexisting does not occur. sent3: that the batholithicness happens is triggered by that the non-algoidness and the unlocking whitewash happens. sent4: both the non-Mesozoicness and the eulogizing BPH happens. sent5: the fact that that the heist occurs is brought about by that the batholithicness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the algoidness does not occur. sent7: that the unlocking Kurdish does not occur yields that the reenlistment occurs and the unlocking mintmark happens. sent8: the echo occurs. sent9: if the temperamentalness does not occur then both the batholithicness and the heist happens. sent10: the coexisting does not occur if both the leaching tying and the reenlistment happens. sent11: that not the unlocking whitewash but the algoidness happens is false if the batholithicness does not occur. sent12: the fact that not the piloting but the magistracy happens is not wrong. sent13: the fact that the rain occurs is not incorrect. sent14: the non-temperamentalness is brought about by that the katabaticness does not occur and/or that the eulogizing cords does not occur. sent15: the unlocking whitewash happens. sent16: both the non-subclavianness and the invulnerableness occurs. sent17: if the katabaticness does not occur then the non-temperamentalness and the non-batholithicness happens. sent18: the fact that the gingivalness occurs is not wrong. sent19: the entering happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent15 -> int1: both the non-algoidness and the unlocking whitewash happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: that the batholithicness does not occur is not right.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the algoidness does not occur.

the rosefish does not eulogize illness if it is anemophilous and it eulogizes lady-of-the-night.

sent1: if something is a Lofoten and it is boustrophedonic then it does not eulogize escutcheon. sent2: the rosefish is philhellenic if it is anemophilous and it does eulogize perishable. sent3: if something is anemophilous and eulogizes lady-of-the-night that it does not eulogize illness is not incorrect. sent4: if something that is a sailing is incompressible it is not anemophilous. sent5: if the rosefish is anemophilous and eulogizes lady-of-the-night it does eulogize illness. sent6: if something does bargain one-liner and it is a codicil it is not infantile. sent7: if the rosefish does eulogize illness and is occlusive it is not a gossiping. sent8: if a anemophilous thing does eulogize lady-of-the-night then it eulogizes illness. sent9: if something that does eulogize Ticino is a kind of a codicil it is incautious. sent10: if the hemstitch does bargain rockabilly and eulogizes illness that it is a brier is right. sent11: something is not Pavlovian if it does bargain urokinase and bargains rockabilly. sent12: if the rosefish is a kind of faceless thing that is anemophilous it is a sarcosome. sent13: if something does iron and bargains Paige it is not a backing. sent14: if something does eulogize meaningfulness and is a enterokinase the fact that it unlocks Spica hold. sent15: the rosefish is not a kind of a mephenytoin if it does pander and eulogizes lady-of-the-night. sent16: if an intrusiveness is a Lofoten it is not incompressible.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ({BL}x & {CR}x) -> ¬{J}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {GF}{aa}) -> {GI}{aa} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ({EC}x & {HI}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (x): ({CP}x & {CG}x) -> ¬{DD}x sent7: ({B}{aa} & {K}{aa}) -> ¬{DC}{aa} sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): ({AE}x & {CG}x) -> ¬{FR}x sent10: ({A}{cl} & {B}{cl}) -> {CU}{cl} sent11: (x): ({BF}x & {A}x) -> ¬{FM}x sent12: ({DK}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> {HU}{aa} sent13: (x): ({IA}x & {AS}x) -> ¬{CK}x sent14: (x): ({FB}x & {EQ}x) -> {FQ}x sent15: ({AJ}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{BI}{aa} sent16: (x): ({EM}x & {BL}x) -> ¬{HI}x

PROVED

PROVED

if the register is a sailing and it is incompressible then it is not anemophilous.

({EC}{hd} & {HI}{hd}) -> ¬{AA}{hd}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rosefish does not eulogize illness if it is anemophilous and it eulogizes lady-of-the-night. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Lofoten and it is boustrophedonic then it does not eulogize escutcheon. sent2: the rosefish is philhellenic if it is anemophilous and it does eulogize perishable. sent3: if something is anemophilous and eulogizes lady-of-the-night that it does not eulogize illness is not incorrect. sent4: if something that is a sailing is incompressible it is not anemophilous. sent5: if the rosefish is anemophilous and eulogizes lady-of-the-night it does eulogize illness. sent6: if something does bargain one-liner and it is a codicil it is not infantile. sent7: if the rosefish does eulogize illness and is occlusive it is not a gossiping. sent8: if a anemophilous thing does eulogize lady-of-the-night then it eulogizes illness. sent9: if something that does eulogize Ticino is a kind of a codicil it is incautious. sent10: if the hemstitch does bargain rockabilly and eulogizes illness that it is a brier is right. sent11: something is not Pavlovian if it does bargain urokinase and bargains rockabilly. sent12: if the rosefish is a kind of faceless thing that is anemophilous it is a sarcosome. sent13: if something does iron and bargains Paige it is not a backing. sent14: if something does eulogize meaningfulness and is a enterokinase the fact that it unlocks Spica hold. sent15: the rosefish is not a kind of a mephenytoin if it does pander and eulogizes lady-of-the-night. sent16: if an intrusiveness is a Lofoten it is not incompressible. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is anemophilous and eulogizes lady-of-the-night that it does not eulogize illness is not incorrect.

the unlocking shinleaf does not occur.

sent1: if that the sterilization happens and the unlocking shinleaf does not occur is not true the unlocking shinleaf occurs. sent2: if the sidetracking happens and the hum happens then the mouth occurs. sent3: if the sterilization happens and the mouth occurs then the unlocking shinleaf does not occur. sent4: if the mouthing does not occur that the sterilization but not the unlocking shinleaf occurs is not right. sent5: if the superiority happens then the fact that both the nonsubmersibleness and the anaphasicness happens does not hold. sent6: that the submersible occurs and/or the snuff does not occur is brought about by the superiority. sent7: if the fact that both the non-submersibleness and the anaphasicness occurs is not right then the submersibleness happens. sent8: the sidetracking happens and the humming does not occur. sent9: if the mouth does not occur then the anchorage occurs and the sterilization happens. sent10: if the sidetracking but not the hum happens then the mouth occurs. sent11: if the snuff happens the fact that the indefeasibleness occurs hold. sent12: that the leaching gadoid happens and the instrumentalness does not occur prevents that the ringer does not occur. sent13: the hum does not occur. sent14: the sterilization occurs and the promoting happens. sent15: the snuffing happens if the submersibleness happens. sent16: the fact that the legalness does not occur hold if both the preventableness and the adjective happens. sent17: the kindness and the expressionistness happens. sent18: if the leaching catboat does not occur then that both the superiority and the cheep occurs hold. sent19: if the prerequisite occurs and the excommunication happens the ringer does not occur. sent20: both the decentralization and the non-infiniteness happens. sent21: the nonslipperiness but not the idyll happens. sent22: the mouthing does not occur and the promoting happens if the indefeasibleness occurs. sent23: the promoting occurs. sent24: the eulogizing cornhusker occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> {C} sent2: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent5: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} & {I}) sent6: {H} -> ({G} v ¬{F}) sent7: ¬(¬{G} & {I}) -> {G} sent8: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ({DT} & {A}) sent10: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: {F} -> {E} sent12: ({FC} & ¬{AD}) -> {CM} sent13: ¬{AB} sent14: ({A} & {D}) sent15: {G} -> {F} sent16: ({FM} & {II}) -> ¬{IM} sent17: ({CB} & {IU}) sent18: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {J}) sent19: ({O} & {JC}) -> ¬{CM} sent20: ({BU} & ¬{BA}) sent21: ({N} & ¬{JG}) sent22: {E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent23: {D} sent24: {IS}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the anchorage occurs hold.

{DT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unlocking shinleaf does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the sterilization happens and the unlocking shinleaf does not occur is not true the unlocking shinleaf occurs. sent2: if the sidetracking happens and the hum happens then the mouth occurs. sent3: if the sterilization happens and the mouth occurs then the unlocking shinleaf does not occur. sent4: if the mouthing does not occur that the sterilization but not the unlocking shinleaf occurs is not right. sent5: if the superiority happens then the fact that both the nonsubmersibleness and the anaphasicness happens does not hold. sent6: that the submersible occurs and/or the snuff does not occur is brought about by the superiority. sent7: if the fact that both the non-submersibleness and the anaphasicness occurs is not right then the submersibleness happens. sent8: the sidetracking happens and the humming does not occur. sent9: if the mouth does not occur then the anchorage occurs and the sterilization happens. sent10: if the sidetracking but not the hum happens then the mouth occurs. sent11: if the snuff happens the fact that the indefeasibleness occurs hold. sent12: that the leaching gadoid happens and the instrumentalness does not occur prevents that the ringer does not occur. sent13: the hum does not occur. sent14: the sterilization occurs and the promoting happens. sent15: the snuffing happens if the submersibleness happens. sent16: the fact that the legalness does not occur hold if both the preventableness and the adjective happens. sent17: the kindness and the expressionistness happens. sent18: if the leaching catboat does not occur then that both the superiority and the cheep occurs hold. sent19: if the prerequisite occurs and the excommunication happens the ringer does not occur. sent20: both the decentralization and the non-infiniteness happens. sent21: the nonslipperiness but not the idyll happens. sent22: the mouthing does not occur and the promoting happens if the indefeasibleness occurs. sent23: the promoting occurs. sent24: the eulogizing cornhusker occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the mouthing happens.; sent14 -> int2: the sterilization occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the sterilization and the mouth occurs.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the sidetracking but not the hum happens then the mouth occurs.

that the overgarment is not counterclockwise hold.

sent1: if the offerer is not a softheartedness the horsewhip is not transatlantic. sent2: if the fact that something is non-counterclockwise and non-autogenetic is incorrect it is non-counterclockwise. sent3: if the overgarment is transatlantic that it plagiarizes and/or it is non-prewar is not correct. sent4: if something that is autogenetic does plagiarize then the landside is prewar. sent5: if the offerer is not hornless then the horsewhip is not transatlantic. sent6: that either the offerer is not hornless or it is not a softheartedness or both is true if there exists something such that it is a huddled. sent7: there is something such that it is a huddled. sent8: there exists something such that it is autogenetic thing that does plagiarize. sent9: the overgarment is not counterclockwise if either the landside is transatlantic or it is prewar or both. sent10: if that the overgarment either does plagiarize or is not prewar or both is wrong then it is not autogenetic.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: ¬{F}{e} -> ¬{D}{d} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{A}x) -> {E}x sent3: {D}{b} -> ¬({B}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent4: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent5: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬{D}{d} sent6: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}{e} v ¬{F}{e}) sent7: (Ex): {H}x sent8: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent9: ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent10: ¬({B}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the overgarment is counterclockwise.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the overgarment is not counterclockwise hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the offerer is not a softheartedness the horsewhip is not transatlantic. sent2: if the fact that something is non-counterclockwise and non-autogenetic is incorrect it is non-counterclockwise. sent3: if the overgarment is transatlantic that it plagiarizes and/or it is non-prewar is not correct. sent4: if something that is autogenetic does plagiarize then the landside is prewar. sent5: if the offerer is not hornless then the horsewhip is not transatlantic. sent6: that either the offerer is not hornless or it is not a softheartedness or both is true if there exists something such that it is a huddled. sent7: there is something such that it is a huddled. sent8: there exists something such that it is autogenetic thing that does plagiarize. sent9: the overgarment is not counterclockwise if either the landside is transatlantic or it is prewar or both. sent10: if that the overgarment either does plagiarize or is not prewar or both is wrong then it is not autogenetic. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the landside is prewar.; int1 -> int2: the landside is transatlantic or prewar or both.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is autogenetic thing that does plagiarize.

the fact that the brachyuran is Eurocentric is true.

sent1: the push is not peripheral or it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani or both if there is something such that it is not a goldeneye. sent2: the defile is organizational. sent3: if the push is not a goldeneye then that the brachyuran is Eurocentric and it is peripheral is false. sent4: the fact that the whipping does eulogize Kleist is true if the bin eulogize Kleist. sent5: the tosser is Rhodesian if the cryptomonad is adaxial. sent6: if something eulogizes Kleist then the bin does eulogize sucker or it does eulogizes Kleist or both. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a goldeneye then the push is non-peripheral and/or not non-Azerbaijani. sent8: the gametocyte is non-Arawakan if that the no is not organizational and it does not romance is wrong. sent9: something does eulogize Kleist if it is Rhodesian. sent10: a non-Arawakan thing incubates and is a Shahaptian. sent11: if the bin does eulogize sucker the whipping does eulogize Kleist. sent12: the brachyuran is Eurocentric if the push is not a kind of a peripheral and/or it is not Azerbaijani. sent13: if the whipping does eulogize Kleist the trim is a Azerbaijani. sent14: the fact that the no is not organizational and it does not romance is not true if something is organizational. sent15: if the gametocyte incubates then the cryptomonad is adaxial. sent16: something is not Eurocentric if that it is a kind of Eurocentric a peripheral is not true. sent17: either the brachyuran does not leach camper or it is chelonian or both. sent18: if the fact that something is not a goldeneye hold the push is a peripheral and/or not a Azerbaijani. sent19: there is something such that it is not a goldeneye. sent20: something is a kind of a goldeneye. sent21: the push is a peripheral or it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani or both.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {M}{j} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: {E}{e} -> {E}{d} sent5: {H}{g} -> {F}{f} sent6: (x): {E}x -> ({G}{e} v {E}{e}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{M}{i} & ¬{L}{i}) -> ¬{K}{h} sent9: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent10: (x): ¬{K}x -> ({I}x & {J}x) sent11: {G}{e} -> {E}{d} sent12: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent13: {E}{d} -> {C}{c} sent14: (x): {M}x -> ¬(¬{M}{i} & ¬{L}{i}) sent15: {I}{h} -> {H}{g} sent16: (x): ¬({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent17: (¬{FR}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent19: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent20: (Ex): {A}x sent21: ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the brachyuran is Eurocentric does not hold.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the brachyuran is Eurocentric is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the push is not peripheral or it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani or both if there is something such that it is not a goldeneye. sent2: the defile is organizational. sent3: if the push is not a goldeneye then that the brachyuran is Eurocentric and it is peripheral is false. sent4: the fact that the whipping does eulogize Kleist is true if the bin eulogize Kleist. sent5: the tosser is Rhodesian if the cryptomonad is adaxial. sent6: if something eulogizes Kleist then the bin does eulogize sucker or it does eulogizes Kleist or both. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a goldeneye then the push is non-peripheral and/or not non-Azerbaijani. sent8: the gametocyte is non-Arawakan if that the no is not organizational and it does not romance is wrong. sent9: something does eulogize Kleist if it is Rhodesian. sent10: a non-Arawakan thing incubates and is a Shahaptian. sent11: if the bin does eulogize sucker the whipping does eulogize Kleist. sent12: the brachyuran is Eurocentric if the push is not a kind of a peripheral and/or it is not Azerbaijani. sent13: if the whipping does eulogize Kleist the trim is a Azerbaijani. sent14: the fact that the no is not organizational and it does not romance is not true if something is organizational. sent15: if the gametocyte incubates then the cryptomonad is adaxial. sent16: something is not Eurocentric if that it is a kind of Eurocentric a peripheral is not true. sent17: either the brachyuran does not leach camper or it is chelonian or both. sent18: if the fact that something is not a goldeneye hold the push is a peripheral and/or not a Azerbaijani. sent19: there is something such that it is not a goldeneye. sent20: something is a kind of a goldeneye. sent21: the push is a peripheral or it is not a kind of a Azerbaijani or both. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent1 -> int1: the push is not a kind of a peripheral and/or it is not a Azerbaijani.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a goldeneye.

the wetter is not a sixth-former.

sent1: the fact that the catalase is not a prankster and does not unlock wetter is false. sent2: the wetter is superficial if something is a RI and is not a kind of a sixth-former. sent3: the rivulet is a kind of a RI that is not a sixth-former if the flip-flop does not bargain downstage. sent4: if the spoor does regiment the wimp is a kind of a bladdernose. sent5: the flip-flop does not bargain downstage if there is something such that that it is not a Ecuador and does bargain downstage is not correct. sent6: the fact that the knotgrass is not a snowman and not mayoral is incorrect if the stagehand does bargain mainframe. sent7: the spoor does regiment if that the knotgrass is a snowman is not false. sent8: the fact that the wrack is not a Ecuador and does bargain downstage is incorrect. sent9: the spoor bargains downstage. sent10: the wetter is not a kind of a sixth-former if there exists something such that it is superficial and a RI. sent11: the wimp is superficial if the fact that the wetter is superficial hold. sent12: the hemophiliac is not Coptic if that the catalase is not a kind of a prankster and does not unlock wetter does not hold. sent13: something does bargain mainframe if the fact that it is Coptic and it does not unlock lineup does not hold. sent14: the spoor is both a regimented and superficial. sent15: something is a snowman if that it is not a snowman and not mayoral does not hold. sent16: The downstage bargains spoor.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{M}{i} & ¬{L}{i}) sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬{E}{d} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent4: {A}{a} -> {HT}{fn} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent6: {G}{f} -> ¬(¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent7: {F}{e} -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{K}{g} & {E}{g}) sent9: {E}{a} sent10: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent11: {B}{b} -> {B}{fn} sent12: ¬(¬{M}{i} & ¬{L}{i}) -> ¬{I}{h} sent13: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {G}x sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent16: {AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the wimp is a kind of superficial a bladdernose.

({B}{fn} & {HT}{fn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wetter is not a sixth-former. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the catalase is not a prankster and does not unlock wetter is false. sent2: the wetter is superficial if something is a RI and is not a kind of a sixth-former. sent3: the rivulet is a kind of a RI that is not a sixth-former if the flip-flop does not bargain downstage. sent4: if the spoor does regiment the wimp is a kind of a bladdernose. sent5: the flip-flop does not bargain downstage if there is something such that that it is not a Ecuador and does bargain downstage is not correct. sent6: the fact that the knotgrass is not a snowman and not mayoral is incorrect if the stagehand does bargain mainframe. sent7: the spoor does regiment if that the knotgrass is a snowman is not false. sent8: the fact that the wrack is not a Ecuador and does bargain downstage is incorrect. sent9: the spoor bargains downstage. sent10: the wetter is not a kind of a sixth-former if there exists something such that it is superficial and a RI. sent11: the wimp is superficial if the fact that the wetter is superficial hold. sent12: the hemophiliac is not Coptic if that the catalase is not a kind of a prankster and does not unlock wetter does not hold. sent13: something does bargain mainframe if the fact that it is Coptic and it does not unlock lineup does not hold. sent14: the spoor is both a regimented and superficial. sent15: something is a snowman if that it is not a snowman and not mayoral does not hold. sent16: The downstage bargains spoor. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the spoor is both a regimented and superficial.

the fact that the perishable does not unlock ticktack but it eulogizes Nigerian does not hold.

sent1: there is something such that it unlocks Emmanthe. sent2: the fact that the crossbencher does not unlock ticktack and/or it does eulogize register is not right. sent3: the perishable eulogizes Nigerian. sent4: that something does not unlock ticktack and eulogizes Nigerian does not hold if it is not a kind of a Rhamnaceae. sent5: the raider does not eulogize Nigerian. sent6: the perishable does not unlock ticktack if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tack and/or it unlocks Emmanthe does not hold. sent7: if something does not eulogize register it does rebuild and is not non-northern. sent8: the manservant does not eulogize Nigerian if the fact that the crossbencher does rebuild but it is not a Rhamnaceae is not true. sent9: that the crossbencher is non-caprine thing that does not eulogize diploidy is not true. sent10: the fact that the mandarin does not tack and/or it does not unlock Emmanthe does not hold. sent11: the fact that the register unlocks Emmanthe hold. sent12: the manservant does not unlock ticktack if that the crossbencher either does not unlock ticktack or eulogizes register or both is incorrect. sent13: the mandarin does unlock ticktack. sent14: The Nigerian eulogizes perishable. sent15: the mandarin unlocks Emmanthe. sent16: if the fact that something does not rebuild and is a Rhamnaceae does not hold then it is not a Rhamnaceae. sent17: something does not tack or does not unlock Emmanthe or both. sent18: if the manservant does not unlock ticktack and it is not a Rhamnaceae the fact that the perishable does unlock ticktack is true. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tack and/or it does not unlock Emmanthe does not hold then the perishable does not unlock ticktack. sent20: there is something such that that it does not eulogize forebrain or it does not eulogize stob or both is false. sent21: the mandarin is a davallia. sent22: there is something such that that it is a tack or it does not unlock Emmanthe or both is false.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {AB}x sent2: ¬(¬{A}{c} v {F}{c}) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬{B}{fc} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & {E}x) sent8: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: ¬(¬{H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: {AB}{f} sent12: ¬(¬{A}{c} v {F}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent13: {A}{aa} sent14: {AD}{ac} sent15: {AB}{aa} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent18: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent19: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent20: (Ex): ¬(¬{FH}x v ¬{JG}x) sent21: {EL}{aa} sent22: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the perishable is not a tack and is noninheritable.

(¬{AA}{a} & {GQ}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the perishable does not unlock ticktack but it eulogizes Nigerian does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it unlocks Emmanthe. sent2: the fact that the crossbencher does not unlock ticktack and/or it does eulogize register is not right. sent3: the perishable eulogizes Nigerian. sent4: that something does not unlock ticktack and eulogizes Nigerian does not hold if it is not a kind of a Rhamnaceae. sent5: the raider does not eulogize Nigerian. sent6: the perishable does not unlock ticktack if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tack and/or it unlocks Emmanthe does not hold. sent7: if something does not eulogize register it does rebuild and is not non-northern. sent8: the manservant does not eulogize Nigerian if the fact that the crossbencher does rebuild but it is not a Rhamnaceae is not true. sent9: that the crossbencher is non-caprine thing that does not eulogize diploidy is not true. sent10: the fact that the mandarin does not tack and/or it does not unlock Emmanthe does not hold. sent11: the fact that the register unlocks Emmanthe hold. sent12: the manservant does not unlock ticktack if that the crossbencher either does not unlock ticktack or eulogizes register or both is incorrect. sent13: the mandarin does unlock ticktack. sent14: The Nigerian eulogizes perishable. sent15: the mandarin unlocks Emmanthe. sent16: if the fact that something does not rebuild and is a Rhamnaceae does not hold then it is not a Rhamnaceae. sent17: something does not tack or does not unlock Emmanthe or both. sent18: if the manservant does not unlock ticktack and it is not a Rhamnaceae the fact that the perishable does unlock ticktack is true. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tack and/or it does not unlock Emmanthe does not hold then the perishable does not unlock ticktack. sent20: there is something such that that it does not eulogize forebrain or it does not eulogize stob or both is false. sent21: the mandarin is a davallia. sent22: there is something such that that it is a tack or it does not unlock Emmanthe or both is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: there exists something such that that the fact that it is not a tack or it does not unlock Emmanthe or both is not false is not true.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the perishable does not unlock ticktack.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the mandarin does not tack and/or it does not unlock Emmanthe does not hold.

the salting does not occur.

sent1: the unlocking knitted occurs. sent2: that both the non-naiveness and the unlocking prothorax happens is not correct. sent3: the developmentalness does not occur if that the Gauguinesqueness does not occur and the bargaining playoff does not occur is false. sent4: that the fact that both the ovineness and the pushing occurs is true is wrong. sent5: the arborolatry occurs if the feminism occurs. sent6: the fact that the scholasticness occurs hold if the laugher happens. sent7: that the line does not occur yields that the hackwork and the bargaining sucker happens. sent8: that the Gauguinesqueness does not occur and the bargaining playoff does not occur is false if the bargaining sucker occurs. sent9: that the slap does not occur and the striateness does not occur is wrong if that the developmentalness does not occur is right. sent10: if the fact that the slap does not occur and the striating does not occur is false the salting does not occur. sent11: the laugher occurs if the fact that not the naiveness but the unlocking prothorax happens is incorrect. sent12: the fact that not the anathema but the Teutonicness happens is wrong. sent13: if the fact that the scholasticness happens hold then the salting occurs. sent14: the bargaining clomiphene occurs. sent15: the fact that the bargaining separatism does not occur and the marmoreanness occurs is not right. sent16: the lining occurs if the unconscientiousness happens. sent17: if that the bargaining shinleaf happens and the laugher happens is wrong the laugher does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {FJ} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent4: ¬({IJ} & {FP}) sent5: {BS} -> {HK} sent6: {B} -> {A} sent7: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent8: {J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent9: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent10: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C} sent11: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent12: ¬(¬{GP} & {EF}) sent13: {A} -> {C} sent14: {CT} sent15: ¬(¬{HF} & {EK}) sent16: {DC} -> {L} sent17: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Teutonicness occurs.

{EF}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the salting does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the unlocking knitted occurs. sent2: that both the non-naiveness and the unlocking prothorax happens is not correct. sent3: the developmentalness does not occur if that the Gauguinesqueness does not occur and the bargaining playoff does not occur is false. sent4: that the fact that both the ovineness and the pushing occurs is true is wrong. sent5: the arborolatry occurs if the feminism occurs. sent6: the fact that the scholasticness occurs hold if the laugher happens. sent7: that the line does not occur yields that the hackwork and the bargaining sucker happens. sent8: that the Gauguinesqueness does not occur and the bargaining playoff does not occur is false if the bargaining sucker occurs. sent9: that the slap does not occur and the striateness does not occur is wrong if that the developmentalness does not occur is right. sent10: if the fact that the slap does not occur and the striating does not occur is false the salting does not occur. sent11: the laugher occurs if the fact that not the naiveness but the unlocking prothorax happens is incorrect. sent12: the fact that not the anathema but the Teutonicness happens is wrong. sent13: if the fact that the scholasticness happens hold then the salting occurs. sent14: the bargaining clomiphene occurs. sent15: the fact that the bargaining separatism does not occur and the marmoreanness occurs is not right. sent16: the lining occurs if the unconscientiousness happens. sent17: if that the bargaining shinleaf happens and the laugher happens is wrong the laugher does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent2 -> int1: the laugher happens.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: that the scholasticness occurs is not false.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the laugher occurs if the fact that not the naiveness but the unlocking prothorax happens is incorrect.

the electric is a kind of cerebellar thing that bargains decarboxylase.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is passionate the electric is a cobaltite. sent2: the bonefish is valent and/or Caesarian. sent3: the bonefish is not valent if it is a kind of a peeve that does bargain nuisance. sent4: if there are passionate things the fact that the electric is a cobaltite and bargains decarboxylase is correct. sent5: the electric is a cobaltite. sent6: the electric is a kind of tannic thing that unlocks trident. sent7: something is passionate. sent8: the electric is valent. sent9: a Caesarian thing is cerebellar. sent10: something is not passionate if it is not a cobaltite and/or it is Caesarian. sent11: if the bonefish is Caesarian then the fact that the electric is Caesarian is not wrong. sent12: the electric is Caesarian if the bonefish is valent. sent13: the fact that the electric is cerebellar and bargains decarboxylase does not hold if the bonefish is not passionate.

({D}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent2: ({G}{b} v {E}{b}) sent3: ({I}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: {B}{a} sent6: ({DJ}{a} & {DM}{a}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: {G}{a} sent9: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): (¬{B}x v {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent11: {E}{b} -> {E}{a} sent12: {G}{b} -> {E}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

that the electric is cerebellar and bargains decarboxylase is not correct.

¬({D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the electric is a kind of cerebellar thing that bargains decarboxylase. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is passionate the electric is a cobaltite. sent2: the bonefish is valent and/or Caesarian. sent3: the bonefish is not valent if it is a kind of a peeve that does bargain nuisance. sent4: if there are passionate things the fact that the electric is a cobaltite and bargains decarboxylase is correct. sent5: the electric is a cobaltite. sent6: the electric is a kind of tannic thing that unlocks trident. sent7: something is passionate. sent8: the electric is valent. sent9: a Caesarian thing is cerebellar. sent10: something is not passionate if it is not a cobaltite and/or it is Caesarian. sent11: if the bonefish is Caesarian then the fact that the electric is Caesarian is not wrong. sent12: the electric is Caesarian if the bonefish is valent. sent13: the fact that the electric is cerebellar and bargains decarboxylase does not hold if the bonefish is not passionate. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the electric is a kind of a cobaltite and it does bargain decarboxylase.; int1 -> int2: the electric bargains decarboxylase.; sent9 -> int3: if the electric is not non-Caesarian then it is cerebellar.; sent2 & sent12 & sent11 -> int4: the fact that the electric is Caesarian hold.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the electric is cerebellar.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is passionate.

the Gurkha is hemiparasitic.

sent1: something is metastatic. sent2: the Gurkha unlocks lingam but it does not distrain. sent3: the Gurkha is not unadoptable. sent4: the shiv is a antimuon but it is not cross-modal. sent5: something is not unadoptable if the fact that it does not abscond and is unadoptable is not true. sent6: the fact that the metharbital does not abscond and is unadoptable does not hold if there is something such that it does not eulogize potter. sent7: the Gurkha is not unadoptable if there exists something such that it distrains. sent8: if there is something such that it does distrain then the Gurkha is hemiparasitic and not unadoptable. sent9: the Gurkha is a kind of a reciprocal but it is not diffident if something distrains. sent10: the Gurkha distrains but it is not unpredictable if there exists something such that it is a rapper. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a mean. sent12: there is something such that it does eulogize Huxley. sent13: if there is something such that it is a genipap the Gurkha is a kind of a sideburn that does not eulogize Liepaja. sent14: there is something such that it is unadoptable. sent15: the Gurkha bargains trabecula and is not unadoptable. sent16: that something is hemiparasitic hold. sent17: there is something such that it is uncritical. sent18: there exists something such that it does let. sent19: the hyssop does not eulogize potter. sent20: the greens is hemiparasitic.

{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): {JJ}x sent2: ({HD}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent3: ¬{C}{a} sent4: ({CS}{bq} & ¬{GM}{bq}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({CM}{a} & ¬{DG}{a}) sent10: (x): {AC}x -> ({A}{a} & ¬{AG}{a}) sent11: (Ex): {GQ}x sent12: (Ex): {BF}x sent13: (x): {I}x -> ({CB}{a} & ¬{IH}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: ({GH}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {B}x sent17: (Ex): {GO}x sent18: (Ex): {JD}x sent19: ¬{F}{c} sent20: {B}{h}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Gurkha is not hemiparasitic.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Gurkha is hemiparasitic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is metastatic. sent2: the Gurkha unlocks lingam but it does not distrain. sent3: the Gurkha is not unadoptable. sent4: the shiv is a antimuon but it is not cross-modal. sent5: something is not unadoptable if the fact that it does not abscond and is unadoptable is not true. sent6: the fact that the metharbital does not abscond and is unadoptable does not hold if there is something such that it does not eulogize potter. sent7: the Gurkha is not unadoptable if there exists something such that it distrains. sent8: if there is something such that it does distrain then the Gurkha is hemiparasitic and not unadoptable. sent9: the Gurkha is a kind of a reciprocal but it is not diffident if something distrains. sent10: the Gurkha distrains but it is not unpredictable if there exists something such that it is a rapper. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a mean. sent12: there is something such that it does eulogize Huxley. sent13: if there is something such that it is a genipap the Gurkha is a kind of a sideburn that does not eulogize Liepaja. sent14: there is something such that it is unadoptable. sent15: the Gurkha bargains trabecula and is not unadoptable. sent16: that something is hemiparasitic hold. sent17: there is something such that it is uncritical. sent18: there exists something such that it does let. sent19: the hyssop does not eulogize potter. sent20: the greens is hemiparasitic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Gurkha is not unadoptable.

the ticker is a Sufi.

sent1: That the ticker does not bargain Feosol is right. sent2: that the Feosol does not bargain ticker is right. sent3: the Feosol leaches Herder or it does not bargain amniote or both if it does not bargain ticker. sent4: something that eulogizes boss is a ergodicity. sent5: the ticker is Sufi if the Herder is a kind of a ergodicity. sent6: the Feosol is a Sufi. sent7: the Herder does eulogize boss if the Feosol does not bargain amniote. sent8: if the Feosol does not bargain ticker then it leaches Herder or it bargains amniote or both. sent9: the Feosol leaches Herder and/or it bargains amniote.

{D}{c}

sent1: ¬{AC}{aa} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent6: {D}{a} sent7: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent9: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ticker is a Sufi. ; $context$ = sent1: That the ticker does not bargain Feosol is right. sent2: that the Feosol does not bargain ticker is right. sent3: the Feosol leaches Herder or it does not bargain amniote or both if it does not bargain ticker. sent4: something that eulogizes boss is a ergodicity. sent5: the ticker is Sufi if the Herder is a kind of a ergodicity. sent6: the Feosol is a Sufi. sent7: the Herder does eulogize boss if the Feosol does not bargain amniote. sent8: if the Feosol does not bargain ticker then it leaches Herder or it bargains amniote or both. sent9: the Feosol leaches Herder and/or it bargains amniote. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Feosol leaches Herder or it does not bargain amniote or both if it does not bargain ticker.

there exists something such that if it is sublittoral the fact that it does not bargain militarism and it eulogizes reliever is incorrect.

sent1: if the Tuscan eulogizes dump then it is not a revoke and it does eulogize reliever. sent2: if the Tuscan is sublittoral the fact that it does not bargain militarism and it eulogizes reliever is not right. sent3: there is something such that if it is Nordic the fact that it is not chylific and it is bibliophilic is not correct. sent4: if the fringe is noncomprehensive then it does not leach planchet and is sublittoral. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a cryolite is not wrong it is not a kind of a lechwe and tyrannizes.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: {IP}{aa} -> (¬{JG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {IM}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & {DS}x) sent4: {EF}{do} -> (¬{DK}{do} & {A}{do}) sent5: (Ex): {BA}x -> (¬{FA}x & {ER}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is sublittoral the fact that it does not bargain militarism and it eulogizes reliever is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Tuscan eulogizes dump then it is not a revoke and it does eulogize reliever. sent2: if the Tuscan is sublittoral the fact that it does not bargain militarism and it eulogizes reliever is not right. sent3: there is something such that if it is Nordic the fact that it is not chylific and it is bibliophilic is not correct. sent4: if the fringe is noncomprehensive then it does not leach planchet and is sublittoral. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a cryolite is not wrong it is not a kind of a lechwe and tyrannizes. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Tuscan is sublittoral the fact that it does not bargain militarism and it eulogizes reliever is not right.

there is something such that if it does recess then that it is both not a valise and a bourtree is false.

sent1: there is something such that if it eulogizes Spica the fact that it does not gesticulate and it is a auricle does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a valise and it is a bourtree is not correct if it is a kind of a recessed. sent3: if something unlocks buckram then that it does not eulogize stimulant and it is autoplastic is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if it recesses the fact that it is a valise and it is a bourtree is not right. sent5: that the shark is not a valise but it does bargain Cronartium does not hold if it does unlock octillion. sent6: there exists something such that if it does recess then it is not a valise and is a bourtree. sent7: if something does eulogize sore that it does not unlock conference and it is a raw is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Tange then that it is both not paroxysmal and a crier is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Ostrogoth hold that it is a kind of protective thing that is a kind of a feint is not true. sent10: if something does recess then it is not a kind of a valise and it is a kind of a bourtree. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a graduality then that it does not buy and it does bargain prothorax is false. sent12: that something is not asynergic but it is a kind of a escapist is incorrect if it is a kind of a bourguignon. sent13: the Voltaren is not a valise but a bourtree if that it is a recessed is right. sent14: if the Voltaren recesses that it is a kind of a valise that is a kind of a bourtree is incorrect. sent15: if the vinblastine is a virginal the fact that it does not bargain prothorax and it does feint is false. sent16: if the Voltaren is a kind of a gamble then that it is non-endocrine and it bargains Davys is wrong. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Sillago but it does harmonize does not hold if it is an imaging. sent18: there is something such that if it is a modern then the fact that it is not a GDP and it is a muffle is not true.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): {IG}x -> ¬(¬{T}x & {AK}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {IK}x -> ¬(¬{HK}x & {AU}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {JB}{da} -> ¬(¬{AA}{da} & {FP}{da}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): {IQ}x -> ¬(¬{DP}x & {GH}x) sent8: (Ex): {CL}x -> ¬(¬{IT}x & {AE}x) sent9: (Ex): {R}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & {F}x) sent10: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): {DO}x -> ¬(¬{IL}x & {GK}x) sent12: (x): {AC}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {IM}x) sent13: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: {L}{bc} -> ¬(¬{GK}{bc} & {F}{bc}) sent16: {FT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{BP}{aa} & {BS}{aa}) sent17: (x): {CU}x -> ¬(¬{HO}x & {IH}x) sent18: (Ex): {GG}x -> ¬(¬{FR}x & {BH}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does recess then that it is both not a valise and a bourtree is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it eulogizes Spica the fact that it does not gesticulate and it is a auricle does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a valise and it is a bourtree is not correct if it is a kind of a recessed. sent3: if something unlocks buckram then that it does not eulogize stimulant and it is autoplastic is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if it recesses the fact that it is a valise and it is a bourtree is not right. sent5: that the shark is not a valise but it does bargain Cronartium does not hold if it does unlock octillion. sent6: there exists something such that if it does recess then it is not a valise and is a bourtree. sent7: if something does eulogize sore that it does not unlock conference and it is a raw is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Tange then that it is both not paroxysmal and a crier is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Ostrogoth hold that it is a kind of protective thing that is a kind of a feint is not true. sent10: if something does recess then it is not a kind of a valise and it is a kind of a bourtree. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a graduality then that it does not buy and it does bargain prothorax is false. sent12: that something is not asynergic but it is a kind of a escapist is incorrect if it is a kind of a bourguignon. sent13: the Voltaren is not a valise but a bourtree if that it is a recessed is right. sent14: if the Voltaren recesses that it is a kind of a valise that is a kind of a bourtree is incorrect. sent15: if the vinblastine is a virginal the fact that it does not bargain prothorax and it does feint is false. sent16: if the Voltaren is a kind of a gamble then that it is non-endocrine and it bargains Davys is wrong. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Sillago but it does harmonize does not hold if it is an imaging. sent18: there is something such that if it is a modern then the fact that it is not a GDP and it is a muffle is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something unlocks buckram then that it does not eulogize stimulant and it is autoplastic is incorrect.

the faucet is not Rosicrucian and leaches Tebet.

sent1: that the cocksucker is not non-visceral and not a mode is incorrect if it is a kind of a tout. sent2: something leaches Tebet and does not eulogize dump. sent3: something is not a testatrix if the fact that it is visceral and not a mode is not right. sent4: if the cocksucker does not eulogize dump the faucet is not a Rosicrucian but it leaches Tebet. sent5: the cocksucker does not eulogize dump if something does eulogize life-style. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it leaches Tebet and does not eulogize dump is false the cocksucker is not a Rosicrucian. sent7: if something is not a kind of a testatrix the fact that it eulogizes dump and does not leach Tebet is not correct. sent8: that something is not a Rosicrucian but it does leach Tebet is not true if the fact that it does eulogize dump hold. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a kind of substantival thing that does not eulogize life-style is not right then the cocksucker does not eulogize dump. sent10: there exists something such that that it is not non-substantival and does not eulogize life-style is not true. sent11: the faucet is not a Rosicrucian.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {G}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: ¬{C}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the catwalk is not a Rosicrucian.

¬{C}{ir}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the faucet is not Rosicrucian and leaches Tebet. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cocksucker is not non-visceral and not a mode is incorrect if it is a kind of a tout. sent2: something leaches Tebet and does not eulogize dump. sent3: something is not a testatrix if the fact that it is visceral and not a mode is not right. sent4: if the cocksucker does not eulogize dump the faucet is not a Rosicrucian but it leaches Tebet. sent5: the cocksucker does not eulogize dump if something does eulogize life-style. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it leaches Tebet and does not eulogize dump is false the cocksucker is not a Rosicrucian. sent7: if something is not a kind of a testatrix the fact that it eulogizes dump and does not leach Tebet is not correct. sent8: that something is not a Rosicrucian but it does leach Tebet is not true if the fact that it does eulogize dump hold. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a kind of substantival thing that does not eulogize life-style is not right then the cocksucker does not eulogize dump. sent10: there exists something such that that it is not non-substantival and does not eulogize life-style is not true. sent11: the faucet is not a Rosicrucian. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the cocksucker does not eulogize dump.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is not non-substantival and does not eulogize life-style is not true.

the fact that the clipper is not a kind of a Nanaimo and it is not two-dimensional is not right.

sent1: if the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization then the armpit is not two-dimensional. sent2: the fact that the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization is right. sent3: the clipper is not two-dimensional. sent4: if the armpit is not two-dimensional then the clipper is not a kind of a Nanaimo and it is not two-dimensional.

¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{c} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the clipper is not a kind of a Nanaimo and it is not two-dimensional is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization then the armpit is not two-dimensional. sent2: the fact that the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization is right. sent3: the clipper is not two-dimensional. sent4: if the armpit is not two-dimensional then the clipper is not a kind of a Nanaimo and it is not two-dimensional. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the armpit is not two-dimensional.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization then the armpit is not two-dimensional.

the Herder is not a gamecock.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a talon. sent2: if something does not unlock bathymeter the fact that it does not leach bedlamite and is anal is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the sheepdog is both not a bonefish and a gamecock is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a talon is not wrong. sent4: something does not unlock bathymeter if it does unlock demarche and it does not bargain compartmentalization. sent5: the foundation is not anal if the mandarin does not leach bedlamite but it is anal. sent6: the mandarin does unlock demarche and does not bargain compartmentalization. sent7: something is not a talon if it is not anal. sent8: the Herder is a bonefish. sent9: if something is a talon then the Herder is a bonefish and a gamecock.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent5: (¬{E}{d} & {D}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent6: ({H}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{A}x sent8: {B}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Herder is not a gamecock.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Herder is not a gamecock. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a talon. sent2: if something does not unlock bathymeter the fact that it does not leach bedlamite and is anal is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the sheepdog is both not a bonefish and a gamecock is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a talon is not wrong. sent4: something does not unlock bathymeter if it does unlock demarche and it does not bargain compartmentalization. sent5: the foundation is not anal if the mandarin does not leach bedlamite but it is anal. sent6: the mandarin does unlock demarche and does not bargain compartmentalization. sent7: something is not a talon if it is not anal. sent8: the Herder is a bonefish. sent9: if something is a talon then the Herder is a bonefish and a gamecock. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the Herder is a bonefish and it is a kind of a gamecock.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a kind of a talon.

the rosefish is not copular.

sent1: if that something is a drumlin and copular is incorrect then it is not copular. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile the field is not a drumlin and unlocks rosefish. sent3: the rosefish is copular if the field is not a drumlin but it unlocks rosefish. sent4: something is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the rosefish is not copular is correct.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rosefish is not copular. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a drumlin and copular is incorrect then it is not copular. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile the field is not a drumlin and unlocks rosefish. sent3: the rosefish is copular if the field is not a drumlin but it unlocks rosefish. sent4: something is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 -> int1: the field is not a drumlin but it unlocks rosefish.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

the ectomorphicness but not the picking happens.

sent1: the priming but not the checker occurs. sent2: that the primingness but not the checkering happens triggers that the picking does not occur. sent3: the lithotomy and the ectomorphicness happens. sent4: if the checker does not occur then the priming and the lithotomy happens.

({B} & ¬{C})

sent1: ({D} & ¬{E}) sent2: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {A})

PROVED

PROVED

that the ectomorphicness but not the pick occurs is not true.

¬({B} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ectomorphicness but not the picking happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the priming but not the checker occurs. sent2: that the primingness but not the checkering happens triggers that the picking does not occur. sent3: the lithotomy and the ectomorphicness happens. sent4: if the checker does not occur then the priming and the lithotomy happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the ectomorphicness happens.; sent2 & sent1 -> int2: the picking does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lithotomy and the ectomorphicness happens.

there exists something such that it does bargain pepperwort.

sent1: the fossa is not a condor but it is a kind of an armband. sent2: that the interpreter does not bargain pepperwort is not wrong. sent3: The Christology does not unlock catchment. sent4: that the catchment is a damascene is correct. sent5: the catchment is seraphic. sent6: the catchment does not unlock Christology. sent7: if the fossa is not a condor but an armband then it does not unlock Christology. sent8: if something does not eulogize shirtlifter then it is a civilian. sent9: if something is not a keratoscope then it does bargain pepperwort.

(Ex): {D}x

sent1: (¬{F}{il} & {G}{il}) sent2: ¬{D}{dc} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: {B}{a} sent5: {EJ}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (¬{F}{il} & {G}{il}) -> ¬{A}{il} sent8: (x): ¬{EL}x -> {GR}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> {D}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

if the official does not eulogize shirtlifter it is a civilian.

¬{EL}{ad} -> {GR}{ad}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does bargain pepperwort. ; $context$ = sent1: the fossa is not a condor but it is a kind of an armband. sent2: that the interpreter does not bargain pepperwort is not wrong. sent3: The Christology does not unlock catchment. sent4: that the catchment is a damascene is correct. sent5: the catchment is seraphic. sent6: the catchment does not unlock Christology. sent7: if the fossa is not a condor but an armband then it does not unlock Christology. sent8: if something does not eulogize shirtlifter then it is a civilian. sent9: if something is not a keratoscope then it does bargain pepperwort. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the catchment does not unlock Christology.

the fact that the vouchee is not Zolaesque is true.

sent1: the martin is a digestive and/or is a carvedilol if it does not direct. sent2: if the martin is digestive then the vouchee is Zolaesque. sent3: the professional directs if there is something such that that it is a kind of directs thing that is not choragic does not hold. sent4: if the vouchee does direct the martin is not non-Zolaesque. sent5: if that the martin is a carvedilol is true the vouchee is Zolaesque. sent6: the martin is not directing. sent7: if the vouchee is not a carvedilol then it is Zolaesque and/or directing. sent8: if the martin is not non-Zolaesque then the fact that the vouchee is not non-Zolaesque is true. sent9: the vouchee is a kind of a carvedilol if the martin is Zolaesque.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}{ga} sent4: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({B}{b} v {A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {AB}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the professional is Zolaesque.

{B}{ga}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the vouchee is not Zolaesque is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the martin is a digestive and/or is a carvedilol if it does not direct. sent2: if the martin is digestive then the vouchee is Zolaesque. sent3: the professional directs if there is something such that that it is a kind of directs thing that is not choragic does not hold. sent4: if the vouchee does direct the martin is not non-Zolaesque. sent5: if that the martin is a carvedilol is true the vouchee is Zolaesque. sent6: the martin is not directing. sent7: if the vouchee is not a carvedilol then it is Zolaesque and/or directing. sent8: if the martin is not non-Zolaesque then the fact that the vouchee is not non-Zolaesque is true. sent9: the vouchee is a kind of a carvedilol if the martin is Zolaesque. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the martin is a digestive and/or it is a carvedilol.; int1 & sent2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the martin is a digestive and/or is a carvedilol if it does not direct.

the simpleness does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that the fact that both the bargaining scrubland and the impenitentness happens is not true hold the impenitentness does not occur. sent2: if the mollification occurs then the bargaining volition does not occur and the leaching Lappland does not occur. sent3: that the exponentiation does not occur is caused by that the farewell does not occur. sent4: that both the majorness and the nonslipperiness occurs is not true if that the Liberianness does not occur is correct. sent5: if that the rising happens or the unlocking lobectomy does not occur or both is not true then the ritualness does not occur. sent6: that both the supporting and the action occurs is brought about by that the bargaining volition does not occur. sent7: if the checkering does not occur then the fact that both the hydrophilicness and the reflection occurs is false. sent8: if that the oticness happens and the eulogizing designer does not occur does not hold then the oticness does not occur. sent9: that the fact that that the litigation happens and the unlocking shirtsleeve happens is true is incorrect if the ritual does not occur is true. sent10: the dibbling does not occur and the checker does not occur if that the action happens hold. sent11: that the bargaining Haemodorum occurs or the cercarialness occurs or both is wrong. sent12: the mollification happens if the bardicness happens. sent13: the simple does not occur if the bargaining saucer does not occur. sent14: that the bargaining scrubland and the impenitentness happens does not hold if the subjunctiveness does not occur. sent15: the unlocking shirtsleeve does not occur if that that both the litigation and the unlocking shirtsleeve happens is not correct is not wrong. sent16: the penitentness brings about that both the simple and the bargaining saucer occurs. sent17: if the fact that the major and the nonslipperiness occurs is incorrect then the farewell does not occur. sent18: that either the oticness happens or the eulogizing designer occurs or both is false. sent19: the oticness does not occur. sent20: if the exponentiation does not occur then the fact that the fact that the oticness but not the eulogizing designer occurs is false is not wrong. sent21: that the unlocking shirtsleeve does not occur brings about that the bardicness occurs and the eulogizing bryozoan occurs. sent22: if that both the hydrophilicness and the reflection occurs is incorrect the subjunctive does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬({D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent3: ¬{AD} -> ¬{AC} sent4: ¬{AG} -> ¬({AF} & {AE}) sent5: ¬({U} v ¬{T}) -> ¬{R} sent6: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent7: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent8: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{AA} sent9: ¬{R} -> ¬({S} & {Q}) sent10: {J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent11: ¬({BJ} v {EF}) sent12: {O} -> {N} sent13: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent14: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent15: ¬({S} & {Q}) -> ¬{Q} sent16: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent17: ¬({AF} & {AE}) -> ¬{AD} sent18: ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent19: ¬{AA} sent20: ¬{AC} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent21: ¬{Q} -> ({O} & {P}) sent22: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the simple happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the simpleness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the fact that both the bargaining scrubland and the impenitentness happens is not true hold the impenitentness does not occur. sent2: if the mollification occurs then the bargaining volition does not occur and the leaching Lappland does not occur. sent3: that the exponentiation does not occur is caused by that the farewell does not occur. sent4: that both the majorness and the nonslipperiness occurs is not true if that the Liberianness does not occur is correct. sent5: if that the rising happens or the unlocking lobectomy does not occur or both is not true then the ritualness does not occur. sent6: that both the supporting and the action occurs is brought about by that the bargaining volition does not occur. sent7: if the checkering does not occur then the fact that both the hydrophilicness and the reflection occurs is false. sent8: if that the oticness happens and the eulogizing designer does not occur does not hold then the oticness does not occur. sent9: that the fact that that the litigation happens and the unlocking shirtsleeve happens is true is incorrect if the ritual does not occur is true. sent10: the dibbling does not occur and the checker does not occur if that the action happens hold. sent11: that the bargaining Haemodorum occurs or the cercarialness occurs or both is wrong. sent12: the mollification happens if the bardicness happens. sent13: the simple does not occur if the bargaining saucer does not occur. sent14: that the bargaining scrubland and the impenitentness happens does not hold if the subjunctiveness does not occur. sent15: the unlocking shirtsleeve does not occur if that that both the litigation and the unlocking shirtsleeve happens is not correct is not wrong. sent16: the penitentness brings about that both the simple and the bargaining saucer occurs. sent17: if the fact that the major and the nonslipperiness occurs is incorrect then the farewell does not occur. sent18: that either the oticness happens or the eulogizing designer occurs or both is false. sent19: the oticness does not occur. sent20: if the exponentiation does not occur then the fact that the fact that the oticness but not the eulogizing designer occurs is false is not wrong. sent21: that the unlocking shirtsleeve does not occur brings about that the bardicness occurs and the eulogizing bryozoan occurs. sent22: if that both the hydrophilicness and the reflection occurs is incorrect the subjunctive does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the exponentiation does not occur then the fact that the fact that the oticness but not the eulogizing designer occurs is false is not wrong.

the spieling but not the blaxploitation occurs.

sent1: the newspapering happens. sent2: the limitation does not occur and the Wilsonianness does not occur if the incriminating occurs. sent3: the eulogizing NLP but not the shopping happens. sent4: the bise does not occur. sent5: the fact that the spiel happens but the blaxploitation does not occur is false if the Wilsonianness does not occur. sent6: the Wilsonianness happens. sent7: the unlocking compunction occurs. sent8: that the wolfing does not occur causes that both the vagileness and the incriminating occurs. sent9: the blaxploitation does not occur. sent10: the spieling happens if that the limitation happens hold. sent11: that the incriminating happens and the vagileness occurs is caused by that the wolf does not occur. sent12: that the incriminating occurs brings about that the blaxploitation does not occur but the spieling happens.

({C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {BQ} sent2: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ({IE} & ¬{BR}) sent4: ¬{HS} sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent6: {A} sent7: {BJ} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent9: ¬{D} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent12: {E} -> (¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the spieling but not the blaxploitation happens does not hold.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the spieling but not the blaxploitation occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the newspapering happens. sent2: the limitation does not occur and the Wilsonianness does not occur if the incriminating occurs. sent3: the eulogizing NLP but not the shopping happens. sent4: the bise does not occur. sent5: the fact that the spiel happens but the blaxploitation does not occur is false if the Wilsonianness does not occur. sent6: the Wilsonianness happens. sent7: the unlocking compunction occurs. sent8: that the wolfing does not occur causes that both the vagileness and the incriminating occurs. sent9: the blaxploitation does not occur. sent10: the spieling happens if that the limitation happens hold. sent11: that the incriminating happens and the vagileness occurs is caused by that the wolf does not occur. sent12: that the incriminating occurs brings about that the blaxploitation does not occur but the spieling happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the wolfing does not occur causes that both the vagileness and the incriminating occurs.

the Mayan is not a edutainment.

sent1: the spruce bargains tetrode. sent2: the spruce is a kind of a murine if it does bargain tetrode. sent3: the Mayan eulogizes agitation if the tetrode does not bargain flood. sent4: the tetrode does eulogize maleficence. sent5: if something is a jamming the fact that it is not legless and does not explore is not correct. sent6: the tetrode does jam if the isoagglutination is a jam. sent7: the Mayan bargains flood if the tetrode either is a edutainment or is not a akaryocyte or both. sent8: that something does unlock hock and is not a kind of a polka is wrong if it is a murine. sent9: if something does eulogize agitation then it is a kind of a akaryocyte. sent10: if the tetrode does not eulogize agitation the Mayan is a akaryocyte that is a edutainment. sent11: that the Mayan does not bargain flood is not incorrect. sent12: if the tetrode either is a Nanaimo or does not bargain flood or both the Mayan does eulogize agitation. sent13: the tetrode is a kind of a Nanaimo and/or it does not bargain flood. sent14: if that something is not legless and does not explore does not hold it does not eulogize agitation. sent15: the tetrode is not a jamming. sent16: the tetrode is a Nanaimo and/or it bargains flood. sent17: if the tetrode is a akaryocyte or it is not a kind of a edutainment or both the fact that the Mayan is a Nanaimo is correct. sent18: something is not a edutainment if it is a akaryocyte. sent19: something does not explore and is not legless if it is not a jamming.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {J}{d} sent2: {J}{d} -> {I}{d} sent3: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: {JB}{a} sent5: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: {F}{c} -> {F}{a} sent7: ({C}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{b} sent8: (x): {I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent11: ¬{AB}{b} sent12: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ¬{F}{a} sent16: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent17: ({A}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the hock is not a edutainment is not incorrect.

¬{C}{fb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Mayan is not a edutainment. ; $context$ = sent1: the spruce bargains tetrode. sent2: the spruce is a kind of a murine if it does bargain tetrode. sent3: the Mayan eulogizes agitation if the tetrode does not bargain flood. sent4: the tetrode does eulogize maleficence. sent5: if something is a jamming the fact that it is not legless and does not explore is not correct. sent6: the tetrode does jam if the isoagglutination is a jam. sent7: the Mayan bargains flood if the tetrode either is a edutainment or is not a akaryocyte or both. sent8: that something does unlock hock and is not a kind of a polka is wrong if it is a murine. sent9: if something does eulogize agitation then it is a kind of a akaryocyte. sent10: if the tetrode does not eulogize agitation the Mayan is a akaryocyte that is a edutainment. sent11: that the Mayan does not bargain flood is not incorrect. sent12: if the tetrode either is a Nanaimo or does not bargain flood or both the Mayan does eulogize agitation. sent13: the tetrode is a kind of a Nanaimo and/or it does not bargain flood. sent14: if that something is not legless and does not explore does not hold it does not eulogize agitation. sent15: the tetrode is not a jamming. sent16: the tetrode is a Nanaimo and/or it bargains flood. sent17: if the tetrode is a akaryocyte or it is not a kind of a edutainment or both the fact that the Mayan is a Nanaimo is correct. sent18: something is not a edutainment if it is a akaryocyte. sent19: something does not explore and is not legless if it is not a jamming. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent13 -> int1: the Mayan does eulogize agitation.; sent9 -> int2: if the Mayan eulogizes agitation then it is a akaryocyte.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Mayan is a akaryocyte.; sent18 -> int4: the Mayan is not a edutainment if it is a akaryocyte.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the tetrode either is a Nanaimo or does not bargain flood or both the Mayan does eulogize agitation.

the saboteur is orthographic and it does leach fiddlehead.

sent1: the maypole is Burmese if there are non-orthographic things. sent2: that the maypole is non-Burmese and/or non-autoplastic is not true if there exists something such that it is not difficult. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Burmese and/or it does not leach fiddlehead is wrong. sent4: the saboteur is orthographic if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Burmese and/or it is not autoplastic is not right. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a sirloin or it is creaseproof or both is false. sent6: there is something such that it is not difficult. sent7: there is something such that it is not aluminous. sent8: the saboteur leaches fiddlehead if it is not seamless. sent9: if something is not difficult the fact that it is orthographic thing that does leach fiddlehead is false. sent10: the maypole leaches fiddlehead.

({D}{b} & {E}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> {B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{E}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> {D}{b} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{DQ}x v {IL}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{GE}x sent8: ¬{F}{b} -> {E}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent10: {E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the saboteur is orthographic thing that does leach fiddlehead is not correct.

¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the saboteur is orthographic and it does leach fiddlehead. ; $context$ = sent1: the maypole is Burmese if there are non-orthographic things. sent2: that the maypole is non-Burmese and/or non-autoplastic is not true if there exists something such that it is not difficult. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Burmese and/or it does not leach fiddlehead is wrong. sent4: the saboteur is orthographic if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Burmese and/or it is not autoplastic is not right. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a sirloin or it is creaseproof or both is false. sent6: there is something such that it is not difficult. sent7: there is something such that it is not aluminous. sent8: the saboteur leaches fiddlehead if it is not seamless. sent9: if something is not difficult the fact that it is orthographic thing that does leach fiddlehead is false. sent10: the maypole leaches fiddlehead. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not difficult.

that the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus is not incorrect.

sent1: if the fireball is not macrobiotics it is not ossiferous. sent2: something does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore. sent3: that the photography is not a kind of a Byelorussian is right if it does not bargain Mellon. sent4: the photography is non-offshore if the fact that something is not ossiferous and does not bargain Mellon is right. sent5: if something is not a Scardinius it is not splenic. sent6: the photography does eulogize Cetorhinus if the tannoy eulogize Cetorhinus. sent7: something is not ossiferous and it does not bargain Mellon. sent8: something is linguistic but it is not passable. sent9: if something is not ossiferous it is not offshore. sent10: if the fact that the bluebottle is ossiferous but it does not unlock streptokinase is not true then the zoril is not ossiferous. sent11: there exists something such that it is not ossiferous. sent12: the streptokinase does not bargain Mellon if it does not eulogize Philomachus. sent13: the fact that something is not a teamwork or does not eulogize communication or both does not hold if it does not unlock shinleaf. sent14: the fact that if the zoril is not offshore the resuscitator bargains Mellon and it eulogizes Cetorhinus is right. sent15: there is something such that it is not ossiferous and does bargain Mellon. sent16: if the episode is not non-capitular that it does unlock shinleaf and does not bargain episode is not right. sent17: if the fact that something is not a teamwork or does not eulogize communication or both is not correct then that it is a theorization is not incorrect. sent18: there is something such that it does not bargain Mellon. sent19: the tannoy does eulogize Cetorhinus if the resuscitator eulogize Cetorhinus. sent20: if the fireball is a theorization the fact that the bluebottle is ossiferous but it does not unlock streptokinase is not true. sent21: the episode is capitular. sent22: something is ossiferous and does not bargain Mellon.

{C}{aa}

sent1: ¬{IH}{e} -> ¬{D}{e} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{HH}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{JB}x -> ¬{AI}x sent6: {C}{a} -> {C}{aa} sent7: (Ex): (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent8: (Ex): ({AR}x & ¬{AU}x) sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{B}x sent10: ¬({D}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent11: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent12: ¬{ES}{bf} -> ¬{A}{bf} sent13: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{G}x v ¬{H}x) sent14: ¬{B}{c} -> ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent15: (Ex): (¬{D}x & {A}x) sent16: {K}{f} -> ¬({I}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) sent17: (x): ¬(¬{G}x v ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent18: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent19: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent20: {F}{e} -> ¬({D}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent21: {K}{f} sent22: (Ex): ({D}x & ¬{A}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fireball is not macrobiotics it is not ossiferous. sent2: something does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore. sent3: that the photography is not a kind of a Byelorussian is right if it does not bargain Mellon. sent4: the photography is non-offshore if the fact that something is not ossiferous and does not bargain Mellon is right. sent5: if something is not a Scardinius it is not splenic. sent6: the photography does eulogize Cetorhinus if the tannoy eulogize Cetorhinus. sent7: something is not ossiferous and it does not bargain Mellon. sent8: something is linguistic but it is not passable. sent9: if something is not ossiferous it is not offshore. sent10: if the fact that the bluebottle is ossiferous but it does not unlock streptokinase is not true then the zoril is not ossiferous. sent11: there exists something such that it is not ossiferous. sent12: the streptokinase does not bargain Mellon if it does not eulogize Philomachus. sent13: the fact that something is not a teamwork or does not eulogize communication or both does not hold if it does not unlock shinleaf. sent14: the fact that if the zoril is not offshore the resuscitator bargains Mellon and it eulogizes Cetorhinus is right. sent15: there is something such that it is not ossiferous and does bargain Mellon. sent16: if the episode is not non-capitular that it does unlock shinleaf and does not bargain episode is not right. sent17: if the fact that something is not a teamwork or does not eulogize communication or both is not correct then that it is a theorization is not incorrect. sent18: there is something such that it does not bargain Mellon. sent19: the tannoy does eulogize Cetorhinus if the resuscitator eulogize Cetorhinus. sent20: if the fireball is a theorization the fact that the bluebottle is ossiferous but it does not unlock streptokinase is not true. sent21: the episode is capitular. sent22: something is ossiferous and does not bargain Mellon. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the photography does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore.; sent7 & sent4 -> int2: the photography is not offshore.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore.

that the malamute is not a kind of a gunrunner is not incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the foamflower is a kind of a value and is not mindless does not hold if it does not eulogize brachium. sent2: if the malamute does eulogize Viscum then the foamflower is hematologic. sent3: the fact that the tassel is an ulcer is right. sent4: the nitpicker is a gunrunner. sent5: if something is not hematologic but it does eulogize Viscum it is not a gunrunner. sent6: something does not eulogize brachium if the fact that it is not a kind of a funiculus is not wrong. sent7: if something that is an ulcer is a kind of a strife then it does not bargain cluck. sent8: that the foamflower does cricket is not wrong. sent9: if either the foamflower crickets or it is a corkwood or both it is not a kind of a funiculus. sent10: The Viscum does eulogize foamflower. sent11: the malamute is hematologic if the foamflower is a kind of a gunrunner. sent12: the foamflower does eulogize Viscum. sent13: if the foamflower is hematologic then the malamute is a kind of a gunrunner. sent14: the elocutionist is a kind of an ulcer if that the tassel is an ulcer is not false. sent15: if that the foamflower does eulogize Viscum hold then it is hematologic. sent16: the elocutionist is a strife. sent17: the malamute is not hematologic if there is something such that the fact that it is both a value and not mindless is not right. sent18: if the foamflower is virginal then it is a Aristotelianism.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{I}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent2: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: {G}{d} sent4: {C}{eb} sent5: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬{I}x sent7: (x): ({G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent8: {K}{a} sent9: ({K}{a} v {L}{a}) -> ¬{J}{a} sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent14: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent15: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent16: {H}{c} sent17: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: {GN}{a} -> {DG}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the malamute is not a gunrunner.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the malamute is not a kind of a gunrunner is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the foamflower is a kind of a value and is not mindless does not hold if it does not eulogize brachium. sent2: if the malamute does eulogize Viscum then the foamflower is hematologic. sent3: the fact that the tassel is an ulcer is right. sent4: the nitpicker is a gunrunner. sent5: if something is not hematologic but it does eulogize Viscum it is not a gunrunner. sent6: something does not eulogize brachium if the fact that it is not a kind of a funiculus is not wrong. sent7: if something that is an ulcer is a kind of a strife then it does not bargain cluck. sent8: that the foamflower does cricket is not wrong. sent9: if either the foamflower crickets or it is a corkwood or both it is not a kind of a funiculus. sent10: The Viscum does eulogize foamflower. sent11: the malamute is hematologic if the foamflower is a kind of a gunrunner. sent12: the foamflower does eulogize Viscum. sent13: if the foamflower is hematologic then the malamute is a kind of a gunrunner. sent14: the elocutionist is a kind of an ulcer if that the tassel is an ulcer is not false. sent15: if that the foamflower does eulogize Viscum hold then it is hematologic. sent16: the elocutionist is a strife. sent17: the malamute is not hematologic if there is something such that the fact that it is both a value and not mindless is not right. sent18: if the foamflower is virginal then it is a Aristotelianism. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent12 -> int1: the foamflower is not non-hematologic.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the foamflower does eulogize Viscum hold then it is hematologic.

the heartbreaker and the precession occurs.

sent1: the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur. sent2: the moderation occurs. sent3: if the moderation occurs then the precession occurs. sent4: that the heartbreaker happens is true if the fact that the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is not incorrect.

({B} & {A})

sent1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {C} sent3: {C} -> {A} sent4: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the heartbreaker and the precession occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur. sent2: the moderation occurs. sent3: if the moderation occurs then the precession occurs. sent4: that the heartbreaker happens is true if the fact that the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the heartbreaker happens.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the precession happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the heartbreaker happens is true if the fact that the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur is not incorrect.

the indapamide does not bargain Python or it eulogizes retread or both.

sent1: the hydroxyl does not bargain Python and/or it is a kind of a payroll. sent2: everything is not a vaulting. sent3: the hydroxyl does not bargain Python if the retread bargains logomach and eulogizes retread. sent4: the indapamide does not bargain Python and/or it does eulogize retread if the hydroxyl does not bargain Python. sent5: the indapamide does not bargain logomach or it does bargain Python or both if the retread does not bargain logomach. sent6: the fact that if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a payroll and does not bargain logomach is not right then the Benzoin does not bargain Python hold. sent7: either the indapamide bargains Python or it does bargain logomach or both. sent8: the indapamide unlocks indapamide. sent9: if a epizoic thing is a payroll the indapamide does not bargain logomach. sent10: if the retread bargains logomach and is a payroll then the hydroxyl does not bargain Python. sent11: the fact that the hydroxyl is not a payroll and/or it bargains Python is not wrong. sent12: the hydroxyl does not eulogize retread. sent13: the retread is a payroll. sent14: the indapamide is not a payroll if the retread does eulogize retread and bargains Python. sent15: if the retread does not bargain Python the hydroxyl does bargain Python and/or it is a payroll. sent16: if the retread does bargain logomach and it bargains Python the indapamide does not eulogize retread. sent17: The logomach does bargain retread. sent18: the oscillograph does bargain logomach and is less. sent19: either the hydroxyl bargains Python or it bargains logomach or both.

(¬{C}{c} v {E}{c})

sent1: (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x sent3: ({A}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} v {E}{c}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{A}{c} v {C}{c}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{r} sent7: ({C}{c} v {A}{c}) sent8: {HQ}{c} sent9: (x): ({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{c} sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent11: (¬{B}{b} v {C}{b}) sent12: ¬{E}{b} sent13: {B}{a} sent14: ({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: ¬{C}{a} -> ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent16: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent17: {AA}{aa} sent18: ({A}{ip} & {AU}{ip}) sent19: ({C}{b} v {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the indapamide does not bargain Python or it eulogizes retread or both is not correct.

¬(¬{C}{c} v {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the indapamide does not bargain Python or it eulogizes retread or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydroxyl does not bargain Python and/or it is a kind of a payroll. sent2: everything is not a vaulting. sent3: the hydroxyl does not bargain Python if the retread bargains logomach and eulogizes retread. sent4: the indapamide does not bargain Python and/or it does eulogize retread if the hydroxyl does not bargain Python. sent5: the indapamide does not bargain logomach or it does bargain Python or both if the retread does not bargain logomach. sent6: the fact that if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a payroll and does not bargain logomach is not right then the Benzoin does not bargain Python hold. sent7: either the indapamide bargains Python or it does bargain logomach or both. sent8: the indapamide unlocks indapamide. sent9: if a epizoic thing is a payroll the indapamide does not bargain logomach. sent10: if the retread bargains logomach and is a payroll then the hydroxyl does not bargain Python. sent11: the fact that the hydroxyl is not a payroll and/or it bargains Python is not wrong. sent12: the hydroxyl does not eulogize retread. sent13: the retread is a payroll. sent14: the indapamide is not a payroll if the retread does eulogize retread and bargains Python. sent15: if the retread does not bargain Python the hydroxyl does bargain Python and/or it is a payroll. sent16: if the retread does bargain logomach and it bargains Python the indapamide does not eulogize retread. sent17: The logomach does bargain retread. sent18: the oscillograph does bargain logomach and is less. sent19: either the hydroxyl bargains Python or it bargains logomach or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the hydroxyl bargains Python or it bargains logomach or both.

that there exists something such that it is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus that is a paralegal is not correct.

sent1: something is a Amblyrhynchus if it is not a paralegal. sent2: something eulogizes manners if it is umbellate. sent3: the felon is a kind of a paralegal. sent4: there exists something such that it does eulogize rockabilly. sent5: if something is not lacrimal that it is a kind of a similarity and is not a kind of a tune-up is not right. sent6: there is something such that it is a paralegal. sent7: the Armenian is not lacrimal if the preemie eulogizes manners and it bargains Paige. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a mince is not wrong then the preemie bargains frostbite and it is legless. sent9: if that something is not a sambar and is not a kind of a yellowfin does not hold it does bargain Paige. sent10: there exists something such that it is a mince. sent11: the fact that the preemie is not non-glottochronological is not false. sent12: that the preemie is not a kind of a sambar and it is not a yellowfin is incorrect if it bargains frostbite. sent13: the Armenian is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Montenegro. sent15: that the Armenian is a paralegal is not incorrect. sent16: the nudnik is not a kind of a paralegal if there exists something such that that it is a similarity and it is not a tune-up is not true. sent17: if something is glottochronological it is umbellate.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x sent2: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent3: {B}{ib} sent4: (Ex): {FI}x sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: ({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent8: (x): {M}x -> ({K}{b} & {L}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & ¬{I}x) -> {F}x sent10: (Ex): {M}x sent11: {N}{b} sent12: {K}{b} -> ¬(¬{J}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: (Ex): {HQ}x sent15: {B}{a} sent16: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{hl} sent17: (x): {N}x -> {H}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the nudnik is a Amblyrhynchus is not wrong.

{A}{hl}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus that is a paralegal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Amblyrhynchus if it is not a paralegal. sent2: something eulogizes manners if it is umbellate. sent3: the felon is a kind of a paralegal. sent4: there exists something such that it does eulogize rockabilly. sent5: if something is not lacrimal that it is a kind of a similarity and is not a kind of a tune-up is not right. sent6: there is something such that it is a paralegal. sent7: the Armenian is not lacrimal if the preemie eulogizes manners and it bargains Paige. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a mince is not wrong then the preemie bargains frostbite and it is legless. sent9: if that something is not a sambar and is not a kind of a yellowfin does not hold it does bargain Paige. sent10: there exists something such that it is a mince. sent11: the fact that the preemie is not non-glottochronological is not false. sent12: that the preemie is not a kind of a sambar and it is not a yellowfin is incorrect if it bargains frostbite. sent13: the Armenian is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Montenegro. sent15: that the Armenian is a paralegal is not incorrect. sent16: the nudnik is not a kind of a paralegal if there exists something such that that it is a similarity and it is not a tune-up is not true. sent17: if something is glottochronological it is umbellate. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent15 -> int1: the Armenian is a Amblyrhynchus and is a paralegal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Armenian is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus.

the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur.

sent1: that the unlocking star does not occur and the autoeciousness does not occur does not hold if the knock occurs. sent2: that the aeromedicalness does not occur leads to that both the knock and the maltreatment happens. sent3: that both the unlocking Gobiesocidae and the non-psycholinguisticsness occurs does not hold. sent4: the aeromedicalness does not occur if the fact that the matinee and the pitching occurs is not right. sent5: the bargaining ski does not occur and the providentialness does not occur. sent6: if the obtainment does not occur then the fact that the matinee happens and the pitching happens is not right. sent7: if the fact that the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur is incorrect then the maltreatment does not occur. sent8: the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: {A} -> ¬(¬{DE} & ¬{GF}) sent2: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent5: (¬{CB} & ¬{GH}) sent6: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{AA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the unlocking star does not occur and the autoeciousness does not occur does not hold if the knock occurs. sent2: that the aeromedicalness does not occur leads to that both the knock and the maltreatment happens. sent3: that both the unlocking Gobiesocidae and the non-psycholinguisticsness occurs does not hold. sent4: the aeromedicalness does not occur if the fact that the matinee and the pitching occurs is not right. sent5: the bargaining ski does not occur and the providentialness does not occur. sent6: if the obtainment does not occur then the fact that the matinee happens and the pitching happens is not right. sent7: if the fact that the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur is incorrect then the maltreatment does not occur. sent8: the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the unlocking Gobiesocidae does not occur and the psycholinguisticsness does not occur is incorrect then the maltreatment does not occur.

there is something such that if it is not a arabesque then it is not a concept.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a festination then it is not unreal. sent2: if the serval is not a arabesque then the fact that it does not bargain denudation is true. sent3: the anapsid is not a concept if it is not algometric. sent4: if something is not a postmortem then it is not a kind of a puzzle. sent5: if the siderocyte is not a Malthusian then it is not prolate. sent6: the roads is not choric if it is not a arabesque. sent7: if something is a arabesque it is not a concept. sent8: the hematocrit is not a arabesque if it is not a trillion. sent9: if the siderocyte is not euphonic then it is not chiromantic. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a arabesque is not false it is not a concept. sent11: something is not a preliminary if the fact that it is not altitudinal is right. sent12: if the siderocyte is a arabesque it is not a kind of a concept. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a pentahedron then it does not depart. sent14: if the siderocyte is not a arabesque it is a concept. sent15: there is something such that if it is not unborn it is not a rent-a-car. sent16: if something is not a kind of a arabesque it is a concept. sent17: if something does not unlock paleness then it is not eruptive. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a arabesque that it is a concept is true.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬{CG}x -> ¬{CR}x sent2: ¬{B}{dk} -> ¬{JI}{dk} sent3: ¬{CF}{dr} -> ¬{C}{dr} sent4: (x): ¬{HD}x -> ¬{FB}x sent5: ¬{FK}{aa} -> ¬{JC}{aa} sent6: ¬{B}{fm} -> ¬{IO}{fm} sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{J}{gs} -> ¬{B}{gs} sent9: ¬{GI}{aa} -> ¬{IS}{aa} sent10: (Ex): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent11: (x): ¬{EU}x -> ¬{CE}x sent12: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> ¬{EF}x sent14: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent15: (Ex): ¬{AG}x -> ¬{FL}x sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent17: (x): ¬{HP}x -> ¬{EB}x sent18: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a arabesque then it is not a concept. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a festination then it is not unreal. sent2: if the serval is not a arabesque then the fact that it does not bargain denudation is true. sent3: the anapsid is not a concept if it is not algometric. sent4: if something is not a postmortem then it is not a kind of a puzzle. sent5: if the siderocyte is not a Malthusian then it is not prolate. sent6: the roads is not choric if it is not a arabesque. sent7: if something is a arabesque it is not a concept. sent8: the hematocrit is not a arabesque if it is not a trillion. sent9: if the siderocyte is not euphonic then it is not chiromantic. sent10: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a arabesque is not false it is not a concept. sent11: something is not a preliminary if the fact that it is not altitudinal is right. sent12: if the siderocyte is a arabesque it is not a kind of a concept. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a pentahedron then it does not depart. sent14: if the siderocyte is not a arabesque it is a concept. sent15: there is something such that if it is not unborn it is not a rent-a-car. sent16: if something is not a kind of a arabesque it is a concept. sent17: if something does not unlock paleness then it is not eruptive. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not a arabesque that it is a concept is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not unborn it is not a rent-a-car.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

sent1: that the commerce does not occur and the crossfire happens results in the ankylosing. sent2: either the golfing does not occur or the interreflection does not occur or both. sent3: if the footrace does not occur the valediction occurs. sent4: that the interreflection does not occur is brought about by either that the golfing does not occur or that the interreflection does not occur or both. sent5: the crossfire and the blank happens. sent6: the eulogizing Paget does not occur. sent7: the studentship occurs. sent8: the commerce does not occur if the eulogizing Paget does not occur.

({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{C} & {A}) -> {D} sent2: (¬{I} v ¬{H}) sent3: ¬{JJ} -> {BD} sent4: (¬{I} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{H} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ¬{G} sent7: {EA} sent8: ¬{G} -> ¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the ankylosing and the pleating happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commerce does not occur and the crossfire happens results in the ankylosing. sent2: either the golfing does not occur or the interreflection does not occur or both. sent3: if the footrace does not occur the valediction occurs. sent4: that the interreflection does not occur is brought about by either that the golfing does not occur or that the interreflection does not occur or both. sent5: the crossfire and the blank happens. sent6: the eulogizing Paget does not occur. sent7: the studentship occurs. sent8: the commerce does not occur if the eulogizing Paget does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

that that the tourtiere does barbarize and it does unlock guerrilla hold is not true.

sent1: the fact that the tourtiere barbarizes if the tourtiere is masochistic hold. sent2: the Ishmael does strain. sent3: that if the breechblock is masochistic the tourtiere does strain is not incorrect. sent4: if the breechblock strains the tourtiere does unlock guerrilla. sent5: if the fact that the guerrilla is a Young and does not strain is wrong then the breechblock is not masochistic. sent6: the breechblock is a strain. sent7: the oblate unlocks guerrilla. sent8: the tourtiere is Laos. sent9: the breechblock is both not non-civic and inward. sent10: the tourtiere is masochistic. sent11: the tourtiere strains if the breechblock barbarizes.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {D}{bg} sent3: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent4: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent5: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: {D}{b} sent7: {C}{ci} sent8: {IE}{a} sent9: ({HI}{b} & {JK}{b}) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: {B}{b} -> {D}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the tourtiere does barbarize and it does unlock guerrilla is not correct.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the tourtiere does barbarize and it does unlock guerrilla hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tourtiere barbarizes if the tourtiere is masochistic hold. sent2: the Ishmael does strain. sent3: that if the breechblock is masochistic the tourtiere does strain is not incorrect. sent4: if the breechblock strains the tourtiere does unlock guerrilla. sent5: if the fact that the guerrilla is a Young and does not strain is wrong then the breechblock is not masochistic. sent6: the breechblock is a strain. sent7: the oblate unlocks guerrilla. sent8: the tourtiere is Laos. sent9: the breechblock is both not non-civic and inward. sent10: the tourtiere is masochistic. sent11: the tourtiere strains if the breechblock barbarizes. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent10 -> int1: that the tourtiere does barbarize is right.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the tourtiere unlocks guerrilla.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the tourtiere barbarizes if the tourtiere is masochistic hold.

that the prickle-weed is a kind of a hassock but it is not a kind of a Mongolian is wrong.

sent1: if that the Nebraskan is not baric is true then the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock and Mongolian does not hold. sent2: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock and not Mongolian is not right if the Nebraskan is not baric. sent3: that the Nebraskan is a Mongolian but it is not a Zukerman is incorrect. sent4: the Nebraskan is not a kind of a Zukerman. sent5: that the prickle-weed is non-sorrowful is true. sent6: the Nebraskan is not baric if the fact that it is not a Zukerman hold. sent7: the prickle-weed is not Mongolian if the Nebraskan is a kind of non-baric thing that is not a kind of a Mongolian. sent8: if the fescue is a force but not a Jurassic then it is not a Zukerman. sent9: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock that is a Mongolian is not correct. sent10: the Nebraskan is not a mnemonics if it is not baric. sent11: the fescue is a force but it is not Jurassic if it leaches arc-boutant. sent12: something is not monotheistic if the fact that it leaches blazing and it is monotheistic is incorrect. sent13: that if something is not a Zukerman that the prickle-weed is a kind of a Zukerman and is not a hassock does not hold is not false. sent14: the Nebraskan is not a kind of a hassock. sent15: the fact that the Nebraskan is not the Mongolian if the Nebraskan is not a Zukerman hold. sent16: something is not baric and it is not Mongolian if it is not monotheistic. sent17: the fescue leaches arc-boutant. sent18: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock but it is not a kind of a Zukerman does not hold if the Nebraskan is non-Mongolian. sent19: if the Nebraskan is not a Mongolian then that the prickle-weed is both baric and not a hassock is incorrect. sent20: that the prickle-weed is a Zukerman but it is not a hassock is wrong. sent21: that that something does leach blazing and it is monotheistic is correct is false if it is not a concrete.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{IN}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: ({H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent9: ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{CO}{a} sent11: {J}{c} -> ({H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬({G}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: ¬{C}{a} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{D}x) sent17: {J}{c} sent18: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent19: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent20: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent21: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}x & {E}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the prickle-weed is a hassock and is non-Mongolian.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the prickle-weed is a kind of a hassock but it is not a kind of a Mongolian is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Nebraskan is not baric is true then the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock and Mongolian does not hold. sent2: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock and not Mongolian is not right if the Nebraskan is not baric. sent3: that the Nebraskan is a Mongolian but it is not a Zukerman is incorrect. sent4: the Nebraskan is not a kind of a Zukerman. sent5: that the prickle-weed is non-sorrowful is true. sent6: the Nebraskan is not baric if the fact that it is not a Zukerman hold. sent7: the prickle-weed is not Mongolian if the Nebraskan is a kind of non-baric thing that is not a kind of a Mongolian. sent8: if the fescue is a force but not a Jurassic then it is not a Zukerman. sent9: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock that is a Mongolian is not correct. sent10: the Nebraskan is not a mnemonics if it is not baric. sent11: the fescue is a force but it is not Jurassic if it leaches arc-boutant. sent12: something is not monotheistic if the fact that it leaches blazing and it is monotheistic is incorrect. sent13: that if something is not a Zukerman that the prickle-weed is a kind of a Zukerman and is not a hassock does not hold is not false. sent14: the Nebraskan is not a kind of a hassock. sent15: the fact that the Nebraskan is not the Mongolian if the Nebraskan is not a Zukerman hold. sent16: something is not baric and it is not Mongolian if it is not monotheistic. sent17: the fescue leaches arc-boutant. sent18: the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock but it is not a kind of a Zukerman does not hold if the Nebraskan is non-Mongolian. sent19: if the Nebraskan is not a Mongolian then that the prickle-weed is both baric and not a hassock is incorrect. sent20: that the prickle-weed is a Zukerman but it is not a hassock is wrong. sent21: that that something does leach blazing and it is monotheistic is correct is false if it is not a concrete. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the Nebraskan is not baric.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Nebraskan is not baric if the fact that it is not a Zukerman hold.

the prototherian eulogizes prototherian.

sent1: the prototherian is a filibuster. sent2: the isthmus eulogizes prototherian. sent3: if something is a flip it does not eulogize prototherian. sent4: the prototherian does pouch. sent5: the prototherian is a kind of a flip if it is a kind of a pouched.

{C}{a}

sent1: {CD}{a} sent2: {C}{ai} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the prototherian eulogizes prototherian. ; $context$ = sent1: the prototherian is a filibuster. sent2: the isthmus eulogizes prototherian. sent3: if something is a flip it does not eulogize prototherian. sent4: the prototherian does pouch. sent5: the prototherian is a kind of a flip if it is a kind of a pouched. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the prototherian does flip.; sent3 -> int2: if the prototherian is a kind of a flip then it does not eulogize prototherian.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prototherian is a kind of a flip if it is a kind of a pouched.

the fact that the panhandler is not a wherewithal but it is a steadiness does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: if there are non-biquadratic things the fact that the panhandler does not glower and unlocks comfit is not correct. sent3: if something is not a wherewithal but it is a kind of a steadiness it unlocks comfit. sent4: the hock does eulogize panhandler if it is not a wherewithal but Sisyphean.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (¬{AA}{i} & {CQ}{i}) -> {EN}{i}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the panhandler is not a wherewithal but it is a steadiness does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: if there are non-biquadratic things the fact that the panhandler does not glower and unlocks comfit is not correct. sent3: if something is not a wherewithal but it is a kind of a steadiness it unlocks comfit. sent4: the hock does eulogize panhandler if it is not a wherewithal but Sisyphean. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not a wherewithal but it is a kind of a steadiness it unlocks comfit.

the mamoncillo does not proselytize.

sent1: the Madeiras does not unlock girdle. sent2: The girdle does not unlock Madeiras. sent3: if the star is not a hypermastigote that it is both not non-heavy-duty and not unfathomable is incorrect. sent4: something does proselytize but it does not unlock girdle if it is not a self-punishment. sent5: the fact that the mamoncillo is not a paradiddle is true if the Madeiras is not heavy-duty. sent6: the mamoncillo does not proselytize if the fact that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a paradiddle is not right. sent7: the Madeiras does not proselytize if that the mamoncillo is a kind of a paradiddle and does unlock girdle is wrong. sent8: if the mamoncillo does not proselytize then that it is heavy-duty and it is a paradiddle is not true. sent9: the mamoncillo is not heavy-duty. sent10: the mamoncillo is non-heavy-duty if the Madeiras does not proselytize. sent11: that the Madeiras does proselytize and it is a paradiddle is false if it does not unlock girdle. sent12: if the mamoncillo does not proselytize then the fact that it unlocks girdle and it is a paradiddle is not right. sent13: the mamoncillo does not proselytize if the Madeiras is not a paradiddle. sent14: something is not a kind of a self-punishment and does not unlock girdle if it is Kantian. sent15: that the mamoncillo does proselytize and it is a paradiddle does not hold. sent16: that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a kind of a paradiddle is not right if it does not unlock girdle.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: ¬{JD}{ai} -> ¬({AA}{ai} & {GG}{ai}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬{AA}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent15: ¬({B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent16: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the mamoncillo does proselytize.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mamoncillo does not proselytize. ; $context$ = sent1: the Madeiras does not unlock girdle. sent2: The girdle does not unlock Madeiras. sent3: if the star is not a hypermastigote that it is both not non-heavy-duty and not unfathomable is incorrect. sent4: something does proselytize but it does not unlock girdle if it is not a self-punishment. sent5: the fact that the mamoncillo is not a paradiddle is true if the Madeiras is not heavy-duty. sent6: the mamoncillo does not proselytize if the fact that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a paradiddle is not right. sent7: the Madeiras does not proselytize if that the mamoncillo is a kind of a paradiddle and does unlock girdle is wrong. sent8: if the mamoncillo does not proselytize then that it is heavy-duty and it is a paradiddle is not true. sent9: the mamoncillo is not heavy-duty. sent10: the mamoncillo is non-heavy-duty if the Madeiras does not proselytize. sent11: that the Madeiras does proselytize and it is a paradiddle is false if it does not unlock girdle. sent12: if the mamoncillo does not proselytize then the fact that it unlocks girdle and it is a paradiddle is not right. sent13: the mamoncillo does not proselytize if the Madeiras is not a paradiddle. sent14: something is not a kind of a self-punishment and does not unlock girdle if it is Kantian. sent15: that the mamoncillo does proselytize and it is a paradiddle does not hold. sent16: that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a kind of a paradiddle is not right if it does not unlock girdle. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent1 -> int1: that the Madeiras is heavy-duty thing that is a kind of a paradiddle does not hold.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a kind of a paradiddle is not right if it does not unlock girdle.

the ptyalin is both enolic and non-athletic.

sent1: if the legume is a kind of a Rwanda then the fact that the ptyalin is enolic and is athletic does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is enolic but it is not inequitable does not hold if it is not athletic. sent3: something is not athletic if the fact that it is a kind of a partridgeberry that is a kind of a Rwanda is not correct. sent4: something is a partridgeberry and a Rwanda if it is not enolic. sent5: that the ptyalin is enolic and it is athletic is not right. sent6: if the legume is a partridgeberry it is a kind of a Rwanda. sent7: if the legume is a Rwanda that the ptyalin is enolic but it is not athletic is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the ptyalin is enolic is correct if the legume is enolic hold. sent9: the legume is a partridgeberry. sent10: that if the legume does unlock Foster then the legume is enolic is correct. sent11: that if the fact that the legume is enolic and is not inequitable is wrong then the percolate is not enolic hold.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: {B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: {C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {G}{a} -> {C}{a} sent11: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{el}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ptyalin is enolic and not athletic.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ptyalin is both enolic and non-athletic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the legume is a kind of a Rwanda then the fact that the ptyalin is enolic and is athletic does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is enolic but it is not inequitable does not hold if it is not athletic. sent3: something is not athletic if the fact that it is a kind of a partridgeberry that is a kind of a Rwanda is not correct. sent4: something is a partridgeberry and a Rwanda if it is not enolic. sent5: that the ptyalin is enolic and it is athletic is not right. sent6: if the legume is a partridgeberry it is a kind of a Rwanda. sent7: if the legume is a Rwanda that the ptyalin is enolic but it is not athletic is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the ptyalin is enolic is correct if the legume is enolic hold. sent9: the legume is a partridgeberry. sent10: that if the legume does unlock Foster then the legume is enolic is correct. sent11: that if the fact that the legume is enolic and is not inequitable is wrong then the percolate is not enolic hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent9 -> int1: the legume is a Rwanda.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the legume is a partridgeberry it is a kind of a Rwanda.

the botulin does leach Gaskell.

sent1: the alsatian does humanize if there exists something such that it is not spectral. sent2: something is a kind of non-diclinous thing that is spectral. sent3: if there exists something such that it humanizes the botulin does leach Gaskell. sent4: there exists something such that it does leach Gaskell. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not diclinous and is spectral does not hold then the alsatian humanizes. sent6: there exists something such that it bargains paparazzo. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that that it is diclinous and spectral hold is not right.

{B}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> {B}{b} sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (Ex): {ID}x sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the botulin does leach Gaskell. ; $context$ = sent1: the alsatian does humanize if there exists something such that it is not spectral. sent2: something is a kind of non-diclinous thing that is spectral. sent3: if there exists something such that it humanizes the botulin does leach Gaskell. sent4: there exists something such that it does leach Gaskell. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not diclinous and is spectral does not hold then the alsatian humanizes. sent6: there exists something such that it bargains paparazzo. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that that it is diclinous and spectral hold is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that that it is diclinous and spectral hold is not right.

the uranium is not extragalactic.

sent1: that the nominalist does unlock ELA but it is not pathological is not true. sent2: that the nominalist unlocks ELA and is pathological is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is not a histologist and is a kind of a cloisonne is not correct if it is a peridot. sent4: the fact that the briard is pathological is incorrect. sent5: the uranium is not extragalactic if there exists something such that it is pathological. sent6: that if the uranium is extragalactic then the fact that the manor is extrinsic but it is not nonlinear is false is not incorrect. sent7: something unlocks ELA but it is not pathological. sent8: the nominalist is not extragalactic if there exists something such that that it is pathological and it does not unlock ELA does not hold. sent9: the uranium is extragalactic if it is lobular. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it unlocks ELA and is pathological is not true. sent11: something is nonaddictive thing that is not lobular if it is not septal. sent12: there exists something such that that the fact that it is extragalactic and it is not pathological is true is incorrect. sent13: something is not septal if that it is not a histologist and it is a kind of a cloisonne is not right. sent14: something is lobular if that it is a kind of nonaddictive thing that is not septal is not right. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a scheduler and is not a kind of a disinterest is not correct. sent16: the fact that the handrest is a kind of a peridot is true if it is lenten. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is a Golgi and does not bargain impetuousness is not right.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) sent4: ¬{AB}{cs} sent5: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({JJ}{cc} & ¬{HB}{cc}) sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({BQ}x & ¬{GA}x) sent16: {H}{b} -> {G}{b} sent17: (Ex): ¬({CO}x & ¬{JB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the uranium is extragalactic.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the uranium is not extragalactic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nominalist does unlock ELA but it is not pathological is not true. sent2: that the nominalist unlocks ELA and is pathological is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is not a histologist and is a kind of a cloisonne is not correct if it is a peridot. sent4: the fact that the briard is pathological is incorrect. sent5: the uranium is not extragalactic if there exists something such that it is pathological. sent6: that if the uranium is extragalactic then the fact that the manor is extrinsic but it is not nonlinear is false is not incorrect. sent7: something unlocks ELA but it is not pathological. sent8: the nominalist is not extragalactic if there exists something such that that it is pathological and it does not unlock ELA does not hold. sent9: the uranium is extragalactic if it is lobular. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it unlocks ELA and is pathological is not true. sent11: something is nonaddictive thing that is not lobular if it is not septal. sent12: there exists something such that that the fact that it is extragalactic and it is not pathological is true is incorrect. sent13: something is not septal if that it is not a histologist and it is a kind of a cloisonne is not right. sent14: something is lobular if that it is a kind of nonaddictive thing that is not septal is not right. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a scheduler and is not a kind of a disinterest is not correct. sent16: the fact that the handrest is a kind of a peridot is true if it is lenten. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is a Golgi and does not bargain impetuousness is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the nominalist does unlock ELA but it is not pathological is not true.

the fact that the pinche is uneventful and/or it is not insignificant does not hold.

sent1: the porcelain is angelic. sent2: the fact that the sort is not a kind of a naltrexone and it does not arm is incorrect if there exists something such that it does eulogize Cremona. sent3: the lull is not significant. sent4: the pinche is Mauritanian. sent5: the cufflink is unapproachable and/or is not a kind of a exenteration. sent6: if the pinche is not insignificant the lull does not leach ornateness. sent7: if something is angelic then it is a glyceryl. sent8: if the porcelain is a glyceryl then that the mastocyte does not unlock snag and it does not eulogize Cremona does not hold. sent9: the lull is uneventful. sent10: that the cufflink leaches ornateness is true. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not a naltrexone and not an arms does not hold the Pomeranian is not a pause. sent12: if the Pomeranian is not a pause the fact that the cufflink does not leach ornateness but it is not non-Mauritanian does not hold. sent13: the flutist is a Mauritanian. sent14: the pinche either is uneventful or is insignificant or both. sent15: if that something does not unlock snag and it does not eulogize Cremona is not correct then it does eulogize Cremona. sent16: the fact that the lull does leach ornateness does not hold if the pinche is uneventful and/or is not insignificant. sent17: the pinche is uneventful if the lull is not a Mauritanian. sent18: if the cufflink is a Mauritanian the lull leaches ornateness. sent19: the cufflink is a Mauritanian. sent20: the pinche is uneventful and/or does not leach ornateness. sent21: the pinche is insignificant.

¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: {I}{g} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}{e} & ¬{D}{e}) sent3: {AB}{b} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ({CK}{c} v ¬{BL}{c}) sent6: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent8: {H}{g} -> ¬(¬{G}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) sent9: {AA}{b} sent10: {B}{c} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}{d} sent12: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent13: {A}{go} sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}x sent16: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: ¬{A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent18: {A}{c} -> {B}{b} sent19: {A}{c} sent20: ({AA}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent21: {AB}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the pinche is uneventful or it is not insignificant or both.

({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pinche is uneventful and/or it is not insignificant does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the porcelain is angelic. sent2: the fact that the sort is not a kind of a naltrexone and it does not arm is incorrect if there exists something such that it does eulogize Cremona. sent3: the lull is not significant. sent4: the pinche is Mauritanian. sent5: the cufflink is unapproachable and/or is not a kind of a exenteration. sent6: if the pinche is not insignificant the lull does not leach ornateness. sent7: if something is angelic then it is a glyceryl. sent8: if the porcelain is a glyceryl then that the mastocyte does not unlock snag and it does not eulogize Cremona does not hold. sent9: the lull is uneventful. sent10: that the cufflink leaches ornateness is true. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not a naltrexone and not an arms does not hold the Pomeranian is not a pause. sent12: if the Pomeranian is not a pause the fact that the cufflink does not leach ornateness but it is not non-Mauritanian does not hold. sent13: the flutist is a Mauritanian. sent14: the pinche either is uneventful or is insignificant or both. sent15: if that something does not unlock snag and it does not eulogize Cremona is not correct then it does eulogize Cremona. sent16: the fact that the lull does leach ornateness does not hold if the pinche is uneventful and/or is not insignificant. sent17: the pinche is uneventful if the lull is not a Mauritanian. sent18: if the cufflink is a Mauritanian the lull leaches ornateness. sent19: the cufflink is a Mauritanian. sent20: the pinche is uneventful and/or does not leach ornateness. sent21: the pinche is insignificant. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pinche is uneventful and/or it is not insignificant.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the lull does not leach ornateness.; sent18 & sent19 -> int2: the lull leaches ornateness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the lull does leach ornateness does not hold if the pinche is uneventful and/or is not insignificant.

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a vacuolization then it is haptic is true.

sent1: something that is not cardiopulmonary is haptic. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not eulogize give-and-go it is a Davys. sent3: something that is not a flesh is a brassiere. sent4: if the carrycot is a kind of a vacuolization it is haptic. sent5: the Africander is a backspin if the fact that it is not a vacuolization hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a vacuolization then it is haptic. sent7: if the carrycot is not a vacuolization it is haptic. sent8: if the carrycot is not diffused then the fact that it is an animation is correct. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is not monometallic is correct then it is a Europan. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not bargain CFTR then it is a electroencephalogram.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> {C}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{JF}x -> {GE}x sent3: (x): ¬{BE}x -> {P}x sent4: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent5: ¬{B}{do} -> {DR}{do} sent6: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent7: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent8: ¬{CK}{aa} -> {HO}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{EH}x -> {ID}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{JA}x -> {GI}x

PROVED

PROVED

if the clairvoyant is not cardiopulmonary it is haptic.

¬{D}{fm} -> {C}{fm}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a vacuolization then it is haptic is true. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not cardiopulmonary is haptic. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not eulogize give-and-go it is a Davys. sent3: something that is not a flesh is a brassiere. sent4: if the carrycot is a kind of a vacuolization it is haptic. sent5: the Africander is a backspin if the fact that it is not a vacuolization hold. sent6: there is something such that if it is a kind of a vacuolization then it is haptic. sent7: if the carrycot is not a vacuolization it is haptic. sent8: if the carrycot is not diffused then the fact that it is an animation is correct. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is not monometallic is correct then it is a Europan. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not bargain CFTR then it is a electroencephalogram. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the carrycot is not a vacuolization it is haptic.

the fact that the colossus is not a west is not false.

sent1: the colossus eulogizes yokel if that something unlocks rodent is correct. sent2: the noctiluca does eulogize Ecuador. sent3: if the noctiluca does eulogize Ecuador and is a surge the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador. sent4: the fact that something unlocks rodent and it eulogizes yokel is wrong if it does not sadden. sent5: if the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador then that the footballer is a yottabit and it saddens is not correct. sent6: there exists something such that it unlocks rodent. sent7: if something does sadden or it does not eulogize yokel or both it does not eulogize yokel. sent8: the colossus does eulogize yokel. sent9: something does leach Guangzhou and it unlocks rodent if it does not eulogize yokel. sent10: the vesiculovirus is a Rhadamanthus but it is not a west.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent2: {F}{e} sent3: ({F}{e} & {G}{e}) -> ¬{F}{d} sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ({D}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: {B}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({FP}x & {A}x) sent10: ({AF}{db} & ¬{C}{db})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the colossus is a west.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the colossus is not a west is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the colossus eulogizes yokel if that something unlocks rodent is correct. sent2: the noctiluca does eulogize Ecuador. sent3: if the noctiluca does eulogize Ecuador and is a surge the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador. sent4: the fact that something unlocks rodent and it eulogizes yokel is wrong if it does not sadden. sent5: if the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador then that the footballer is a yottabit and it saddens is not correct. sent6: there exists something such that it unlocks rodent. sent7: if something does sadden or it does not eulogize yokel or both it does not eulogize yokel. sent8: the colossus does eulogize yokel. sent9: something does leach Guangzhou and it unlocks rodent if it does not eulogize yokel. sent10: the vesiculovirus is a Rhadamanthus but it is not a west. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador then that the footballer is a yottabit and it saddens is not correct.

the fact that there exists something such that if that it does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both does not hold then it is a Bihar is incorrect.

sent1: there exists something such that if that it is either not a Percheron or maximal or both does not hold then it is lucifugous. sent2: that if that the pretzel is either not the Bihar or oracular or both is false the pretzel is regional is correct. sent3: if that the wahoo is not a precociousness or is a Bihar or both is not correct it unlocks register. sent4: if that the tarsal either is not a centrist or is sectorial or both does not hold it does eulogize stagnation. sent5: the tarsal is a Bihar if either it does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both. sent6: if the fact that the tarsal does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both is not true it is a Bihar. sent7: if that that the tarsal eulogizes stagnation and/or is ebracteate is wrong is not incorrect then it is a Bihar. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does eulogize stagnation or is ebracteate or both is false it is a Bihar. sent9: if the fact that the tarsal does not eulogize stagnation and/or it bargains regionalism is not correct then it cleaves. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not eulogize stagnation or is ebracteate or both then it is a kind of a Bihar. sent11: there exists something such that if that it is a discomposure and/or saponifies is not correct then it does eulogize steamer. sent12: if the steamer does not eulogize stagnation and/or it does unlock Maraco then it is oracular. sent13: the tarsal is a Sarawakian if the fact that it is ebracteate or it does unlock haircut or both is not right. sent14: there is something such that if that it is not fruitful or it is traumatic or both is wrong it is areolar. sent15: that something is gothic is right if the fact that either it does not unlock trimmed or it is a kind of a bodybuilder or both is wrong. sent16: if the fact that the register is a Bihar and/or it is a kind of a Kirchhoff is incorrect then it is a kind of an erythropoietin.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{HK}x v {BU}x) -> {CS}x sent2: ¬(¬{B}{dp} v {EI}{dp}) -> {AN}{dp} sent3: ¬(¬{IN}{ia} v {B}{ia}) -> {JA}{ia} sent4: ¬(¬{AG}{aa} v {JG}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {GQ}{aa}) -> {G}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): ¬({GS}x v {CI}x) -> {CH}x sent12: (¬{AA}{cr} v {EN}{cr}) -> {EI}{cr} sent13: ¬({AB}{aa} v {HM}{aa}) -> {FO}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{ID}x v {HH}x) -> {IP}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{CT}x v {FH}x) -> {JF}x sent16: ¬({B}{b} v {EB}{b}) -> {FI}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there is something such that if the fact that either it does not unlock trimmed or it is a kind of a bodybuilder or both is wrong the fact that it is gothic is not wrong.

(Ex): ¬(¬{CT}x v {FH}x) -> {JF}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both does not hold then it is a Bihar is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is either not a Percheron or maximal or both does not hold then it is lucifugous. sent2: that if that the pretzel is either not the Bihar or oracular or both is false the pretzel is regional is correct. sent3: if that the wahoo is not a precociousness or is a Bihar or both is not correct it unlocks register. sent4: if that the tarsal either is not a centrist or is sectorial or both does not hold it does eulogize stagnation. sent5: the tarsal is a Bihar if either it does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both. sent6: if the fact that the tarsal does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both is not true it is a Bihar. sent7: if that that the tarsal eulogizes stagnation and/or is ebracteate is wrong is not incorrect then it is a Bihar. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does eulogize stagnation or is ebracteate or both is false it is a Bihar. sent9: if the fact that the tarsal does not eulogize stagnation and/or it bargains regionalism is not correct then it cleaves. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not eulogize stagnation or is ebracteate or both then it is a kind of a Bihar. sent11: there exists something such that if that it is a discomposure and/or saponifies is not correct then it does eulogize steamer. sent12: if the steamer does not eulogize stagnation and/or it does unlock Maraco then it is oracular. sent13: the tarsal is a Sarawakian if the fact that it is ebracteate or it does unlock haircut or both is not right. sent14: there is something such that if that it is not fruitful or it is traumatic or both is wrong it is areolar. sent15: that something is gothic is right if the fact that either it does not unlock trimmed or it is a kind of a bodybuilder or both is wrong. sent16: if the fact that the register is a Bihar and/or it is a kind of a Kirchhoff is incorrect then it is a kind of an erythropoietin. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the tarsal does not eulogize stagnation or it is ebracteate or both is not true it is a Bihar.

the prototherian eulogizes coelenterate.

sent1: everything eulogizes pensiveness and does not eulogize coelenterate. sent2: everything is acinar. sent3: the henbane is not muciferous. sent4: the auxin is Alaskan thing that does not eulogize coelenterate. sent5: everything is a doornail. sent6: the prototherian is not vehicular. sent7: that everything is a tenebrionid and it does not red-eye is correct. sent8: the louse eulogizes pensiveness. sent9: the prototherian does live. sent10: the fact that the prototherian does unlock Gobiesocidae is not wrong. sent11: the prototherian unlocks prothorax but it is not Eurafrican.

{AB}{aa}

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {FE}x sent3: ¬{IG}{u} sent4: ({BB}{is} & ¬{AB}{is}) sent5: (x): {AL}x sent6: ¬{GE}{aa} sent7: (x): ({DP}x & ¬{EH}x) sent8: {AA}{fr} sent9: {G}{aa} sent10: {FM}{aa} sent11: ({AQ}{aa} & ¬{CB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the prototherian eulogizes coelenterate. ; $context$ = sent1: everything eulogizes pensiveness and does not eulogize coelenterate. sent2: everything is acinar. sent3: the henbane is not muciferous. sent4: the auxin is Alaskan thing that does not eulogize coelenterate. sent5: everything is a doornail. sent6: the prototherian is not vehicular. sent7: that everything is a tenebrionid and it does not red-eye is correct. sent8: the louse eulogizes pensiveness. sent9: the prototherian does live. sent10: the fact that the prototherian does unlock Gobiesocidae is not wrong. sent11: the prototherian unlocks prothorax but it is not Eurafrican. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the prototherian eulogizes pensiveness but it does not eulogize coelenterate.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything eulogizes pensiveness and does not eulogize coelenterate.

the influencing occurs.

sent1: the sentientness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the extensiveness and the non-Thebanness occurs does not hold if the sentientness does not occur. sent3: the influence does not occur if that the extensiveness but not the Theban happens is not true. sent4: not the crowd but the Echo occurs if the nonexploratoriness happens. sent5: the paranormalness does not occur if the fact that both the influencing and the sentientness happens is not correct. sent6: the fact that both the influencing and the sentientness occurs is false if the fact that the crowding does not occur is not false.

{B}

sent1: ¬{A} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: {E} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent5: ¬({B} & {A}) -> ¬{HT} sent6: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the paranormalness does not occur.

¬{HT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the influencing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the sentientness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the extensiveness and the non-Thebanness occurs does not hold if the sentientness does not occur. sent3: the influence does not occur if that the extensiveness but not the Theban happens is not true. sent4: not the crowd but the Echo occurs if the nonexploratoriness happens. sent5: the paranormalness does not occur if the fact that both the influencing and the sentientness happens is not correct. sent6: the fact that both the influencing and the sentientness occurs is false if the fact that the crowding does not occur is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the extensiveness happens and the Thebanness does not occur is false.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the extensiveness and the non-Thebanness occurs does not hold if the sentientness does not occur.

the floorboard is not a sounding.

sent1: the floorboard is not a Astronium if the fact that it is nonconductive and it is not a kind of a Major is false. sent2: the counterpart does not sound. sent3: something eulogizes tidemark if it is persistent. sent4: if something is not a shahadah then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent5: if the oculomotor is not a fellow and/or it is not a flavor then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent6: the strawberry either does not prowl or is not a shahadah or both if the floorboard does sound. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of non-persistent thing that does eulogize tidemark is incorrect if it is a ablative. sent8: something is not a avower if it is not a Nazism or it is not perpendicular or both. sent9: something is a kind of a sounding if the fact that it is not persistent and eulogizes tidemark is incorrect. sent10: if the floorboard is a kind of a sounding then the strawberry is not a prowl or it is a shahadah or both. sent11: the Angle does develop and it does eulogize tidemark. sent12: the strawberry is not a kind of a prowl and/or is a shahadah. sent13: the strawberry is a ablative and it is persistent. sent14: something that is not a Astronium is a kind of a damages that is ablative. sent15: if the floorboard is non-ablative or does not eulogize tidemark or both then it does not sound. sent16: if the strawberry is not a shahadah then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent17: the strawberry is a kind of a ablative.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{fr} sent3: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent4: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (¬{FI}{i} v ¬{FQ}{i}) -> ¬{B}{i} sent6: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): (¬{DG}x v ¬{HL}x) -> ¬{HA}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent11: ({GE}{fk} & {B}{fk}) sent12: (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent13: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent15: (¬{D}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: {D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the floorboard does sound.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the floorboard is not a sounding. ; $context$ = sent1: the floorboard is not a Astronium if the fact that it is nonconductive and it is not a kind of a Major is false. sent2: the counterpart does not sound. sent3: something eulogizes tidemark if it is persistent. sent4: if something is not a shahadah then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent5: if the oculomotor is not a fellow and/or it is not a flavor then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent6: the strawberry either does not prowl or is not a shahadah or both if the floorboard does sound. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of non-persistent thing that does eulogize tidemark is incorrect if it is a ablative. sent8: something is not a avower if it is not a Nazism or it is not perpendicular or both. sent9: something is a kind of a sounding if the fact that it is not persistent and eulogizes tidemark is incorrect. sent10: if the floorboard is a kind of a sounding then the strawberry is not a prowl or it is a shahadah or both. sent11: the Angle does develop and it does eulogize tidemark. sent12: the strawberry is not a kind of a prowl and/or is a shahadah. sent13: the strawberry is a ablative and it is persistent. sent14: something that is not a Astronium is a kind of a damages that is ablative. sent15: if the floorboard is non-ablative or does not eulogize tidemark or both then it does not sound. sent16: if the strawberry is not a shahadah then it does not eulogize tidemark. sent17: the strawberry is a kind of a ablative. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the strawberry either does not prowl or is not a shahadah or both if the floorboard does sound.

there is something such that if that it does not efface and it is false is incorrect then it is not a ceratopsian.

sent1: there exists something such that if that it is not a Sida and it is subarctic is false then it is a kind of a missing. sent2: there exists something such that if it does efface then it is not a kind of a ceratopsian. sent3: there exists something such that if that it is firmamental and it is a MPS is incorrect then that it is not a kind of a journalese is not incorrect. sent4: the wahoo is not a ceratopsian if it does not efface and is false. sent5: the wahoo is not a ceratopsian if the fact that it does not efface and it is false is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if that it is unawares and is a lacrosse is not true it is not a kind of a ferret. sent7: the wahoo is a ceratopsian if the fact that it does not efface and it is false is not true.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{CQ}x & {IN}x) -> {AH}x sent2: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({CT}x & {GB}x) -> ¬{HN}x sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬({CU}x & {JC}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it does not efface and it is false is incorrect then it is not a ceratopsian. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is not a Sida and it is subarctic is false then it is a kind of a missing. sent2: there exists something such that if it does efface then it is not a kind of a ceratopsian. sent3: there exists something such that if that it is firmamental and it is a MPS is incorrect then that it is not a kind of a journalese is not incorrect. sent4: the wahoo is not a ceratopsian if it does not efface and is false. sent5: the wahoo is not a ceratopsian if the fact that it does not efface and it is false is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if that it is unawares and is a lacrosse is not true it is not a kind of a ferret. sent7: the wahoo is a ceratopsian if the fact that it does not efface and it is false is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the wahoo is not a ceratopsian if the fact that it does not efface and it is false is incorrect.

that the partygoer is postexilic but it is not febrile is incorrect.

sent1: that the balsa is febrile but it is not a kind of a Mellon does not hold. sent2: the partygoer is not a costermonger. sent3: the fact that the partygoer is postexilic and is febrile is incorrect if the number is not febrile. sent4: the balsa does leach undertide. sent5: the number is not a kind of a Mellon. sent6: the number is not postexilic if the partygoer is febrile. sent7: the prototherian is non-postexilic. sent8: the fact that the number is a Mellon but not febrile is not true if the balsa is not febrile. sent9: that the number is a kind of postexilic thing that does not till is not right if the balsa is febrile. sent10: if the balsa is febrile then the fact that it is a spoor is true. sent11: the fact that the partygoer is a costermonger but it is not febrile is not right. sent12: the balsa is synesthetic. sent13: the fact that that the balsa is both a spoor and not a Mellon is not false does not hold. sent14: if that the balsa is a spoor but it is not a Mellon is false it is a costermonger. sent15: if that the balsa is febrile but it is not a Mellon is not true that it is postexilic hold. sent16: the fact that the fact that the balsa is febrile but it is not a spoor is correct is not right. sent17: the number is not febrile if the fact that the balsa is a costermonger hold. sent18: the fact that the balsa is febrile a costermonger is not right. sent19: the fact that the number is a spoor and not febrile is incorrect if the balsa is not febrile. sent20: the number is a unit if it is a Mellon. sent21: that the partygoer is a kind of a Mellon that is not febrile does not hold if the balsa is not febrile.

¬({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})

sent1: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent4: {FO}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} sent6: {A}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: ¬{C}{dq} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{AR}{b}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent11: ¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent12: {AG}{a} sent13: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent15: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent16: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent17: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent18: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent19: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent20: {AB}{b} -> {GC}{b} sent21: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AB}{c} & ¬{A}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN