Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_1

like 0

the rosewood is contestable.

sent1: the Kansan is not syncarpous if the diptych is syncarpous. sent2: something is not contestable if the fact that it is non-syncarpous thing that is contestable does not hold. sent3: the fact that the diptych is a gobble that is not a raid does not hold. sent4: the fact that the diptych does not raid and it does not bargain Fasciolidae does not hold. sent5: the rosewood is not a kind of an individuality if the fact that it is a kind of an individuality that is a wineberry is not correct. sent6: the diptych is not a kind of a cringle and it is not mediate. sent7: if the diptych is a gobble the luminescence unlocks exhortation. sent8: that the luminescence does not unlock exhortation and is not contestable does not hold. sent9: the rosewood is a kind of non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation if the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a debarment hold. sent11: if the rosewood is not syncarpous but it unlocks exhortation it is contestable. sent12: the rosewood does not unlock exhortation if the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent13: the fact that the diptych is not a gobble and it is not a raid does not hold. sent14: something that is not syncarpous and unlocks exhortation is contestable. sent15: the rosewood raids. sent16: the oregano does unlock exhortation. sent17: if that the diptych is not a gobble and not a raid is not right the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent18: that something is not a raid and does not unlock oregano is not right if it is not syncarpous. sent19: the rosewood does not unlock exhortation. sent20: something clusters and it unlocks exhortation if it is not an individuality. sent21: the fact that something is not syncarpous and not incontestable does not hold if it unlocks exhortation. sent22: the fact that something is an individuality and it is a wineberry is not right if it is not a Louisianan. sent23: the diptych unlocks exhortation if it is not a gobble and is not syncarpous. sent24: if something is non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation it is contestable.

{C}{c}

sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬{A}{d} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{IP}{a}) sent5: ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent6: (¬{GL}{a} & ¬{GI}{a}) sent7: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: {B}{b} -> (¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent10: (Ex): {H}x sent11: (¬{A}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {C}{c} sent12: {B}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {C}x sent15: {AB}{c} sent16: {B}{fm} sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{GU}x) sent19: ¬{B}{c} sent20: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {B}x) sent21: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent22: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({E}x & {F}x) sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent24: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the rosewood is not contestable is correct.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rosewood is contestable. ; $context$ = sent1: the Kansan is not syncarpous if the diptych is syncarpous. sent2: something is not contestable if the fact that it is non-syncarpous thing that is contestable does not hold. sent3: the fact that the diptych is a gobble that is not a raid does not hold. sent4: the fact that the diptych does not raid and it does not bargain Fasciolidae does not hold. sent5: the rosewood is not a kind of an individuality if the fact that it is a kind of an individuality that is a wineberry is not correct. sent6: the diptych is not a kind of a cringle and it is not mediate. sent7: if the diptych is a gobble the luminescence unlocks exhortation. sent8: that the luminescence does not unlock exhortation and is not contestable does not hold. sent9: the rosewood is a kind of non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation if the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a debarment hold. sent11: if the rosewood is not syncarpous but it unlocks exhortation it is contestable. sent12: the rosewood does not unlock exhortation if the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent13: the fact that the diptych is not a gobble and it is not a raid does not hold. sent14: something that is not syncarpous and unlocks exhortation is contestable. sent15: the rosewood raids. sent16: the oregano does unlock exhortation. sent17: if that the diptych is not a gobble and not a raid is not right the luminescence does unlock exhortation. sent18: that something is not a raid and does not unlock oregano is not right if it is not syncarpous. sent19: the rosewood does not unlock exhortation. sent20: something clusters and it unlocks exhortation if it is not an individuality. sent21: the fact that something is not syncarpous and not incontestable does not hold if it unlocks exhortation. sent22: the fact that something is an individuality and it is a wineberry is not right if it is not a Louisianan. sent23: the diptych unlocks exhortation if it is not a gobble and is not syncarpous. sent24: if something is non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation it is contestable. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent13 -> int1: the luminescence does unlock exhortation.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the rosewood is not syncarpous and does not unlock exhortation.; sent24 -> int3: the rosewood is contestable if it is not syncarpous and does not unlock exhortation.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the diptych is not a gobble and not a raid is not right the luminescence does unlock exhortation.

the paraprofessional is libidinal and it is statesmanlike.

sent1: the gonif is not a Mendelism and/or it does not rush aerobe if the embankment is a hexose. sent2: if there is something such that it is a halma and/or is a kind of a businessperson then the gonif sensitizes sin. sent3: the fact that something is not a halma and not non-libidinal is incorrect if it is a businessperson. sent4: if the thrasher is fleshy then the wreath is a LPN. sent5: something is unmanly if it does not rush aerobe. sent6: if the thrasher does rush Tuscaloosa then the wreath is a LPN. sent7: that something is a pivot and not fistulous does not hold if it is a neomycin. sent8: the wreath is a kind of a neomycin if it is a LPN. sent9: the embankment is manly if the gonif does sensitize sin. sent10: if that something is not a halma but it is libidinal is incorrect then it is not libidinal. sent11: if something is not a Mendelism it is not manly. sent12: the gonif is statesmanlike. sent13: the embankment is libidinal if the paraprofessional is manly. sent14: the paraprofessional is statesmanlike if something is manly. sent15: the paraprofessional is not unstatesmanlike. sent16: the dance is a kind of a resilience. sent17: there is something such that it is a kind of a halma and/or it is a businessperson. sent18: if something is a kind of a halma then the gonif does sensitize sin. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a pivot that is not fistulous is not true the embankment is a hexose. sent20: the thrasher is fleshy and/or rushes Tuscaloosa.

({E}{c} & {F}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the paraprofessional is libidinal and it is statesmanlike is not true.

¬({E}{c} & {F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the paraprofessional is libidinal and it is statesmanlike. ; $context$ = sent1: the gonif is not a Mendelism and/or it does not rush aerobe if the embankment is a hexose. sent2: if there is something such that it is a halma and/or is a kind of a businessperson then the gonif sensitizes sin. sent3: the fact that something is not a halma and not non-libidinal is incorrect if it is a businessperson. sent4: if the thrasher is fleshy then the wreath is a LPN. sent5: something is unmanly if it does not rush aerobe. sent6: if the thrasher does rush Tuscaloosa then the wreath is a LPN. sent7: that something is a pivot and not fistulous does not hold if it is a neomycin. sent8: the wreath is a kind of a neomycin if it is a LPN. sent9: the embankment is manly if the gonif does sensitize sin. sent10: if that something is not a halma but it is libidinal is incorrect then it is not libidinal. sent11: if something is not a Mendelism it is not manly. sent12: the gonif is statesmanlike. sent13: the embankment is libidinal if the paraprofessional is manly. sent14: the paraprofessional is statesmanlike if something is manly. sent15: the paraprofessional is not unstatesmanlike. sent16: the dance is a kind of a resilience. sent17: there is something such that it is a kind of a halma and/or it is a businessperson. sent18: if something is a kind of a halma then the gonif does sensitize sin. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a pivot that is not fistulous is not true the embankment is a hexose. sent20: the thrasher is fleshy and/or rushes Tuscaloosa. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a kind of a halma and/or it is a businessperson.

the martensite is unenforceable.

sent1: the fact that that something noses turmeric and is polyvalent is correct is not right if it is not a Symphalangus. sent2: if the stopping is not a kind of a harpoon the fact that it is hydrographic and is a pad is wrong. sent3: the subthalamus is a call. sent4: that the subthalamus does canvass grandparent is true. sent5: That the grandparent does canvass subthalamus is true. sent6: something is unenforceable if it noses Latinist. sent7: that something is a kind of a Gabonese hold if it is a kind of a Walloons. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is hydrographic a pad does not hold then the tread is not a Symphalangus. sent9: that the stopping is not a harpoon is correct. sent10: the martensite is not unenforceable if the fact that the subthalamus does not nose Latinist and is unenforceable is not correct.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the martensite is not unenforceable.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the martensite is unenforceable. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that something noses turmeric and is polyvalent is correct is not right if it is not a Symphalangus. sent2: if the stopping is not a kind of a harpoon the fact that it is hydrographic and is a pad is wrong. sent3: the subthalamus is a call. sent4: that the subthalamus does canvass grandparent is true. sent5: That the grandparent does canvass subthalamus is true. sent6: something is unenforceable if it noses Latinist. sent7: that something is a kind of a Gabonese hold if it is a kind of a Walloons. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is hydrographic a pad does not hold then the tread is not a Symphalangus. sent9: that the stopping is not a harpoon is correct. sent10: the martensite is not unenforceable if the fact that the subthalamus does not nose Latinist and is unenforceable is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is unenforceable if it noses Latinist.

the pug does not nose unfamiliarity.

sent1: the pug is brunet. sent2: something does nose unfamiliarity if it does canvass specification. sent3: the coatee does not rush pug if there is something such that it is a kind of a brunet. sent4: The specification does not canvass pug. sent5: something does canvass specification and it is ipsilateral if it does not rush pug. sent6: the pug is not non-camphoric but it does not nose one-quadrillionth. sent7: if the sod does rush pug then either it is not ipsilateral or it does canvass specification or both. sent8: a unintelligent thing that does not toughen is not broadband. sent9: the pug does not canvass specification. sent10: everything is unintelligent and it does not toughen.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: {E}{a} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}{bu} sent4: ¬{AB}{ab} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent6: ({HJ}{a} & ¬{FJ}{a}) sent7: {D}{b} -> (¬{C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent8: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{CE}x sent9: ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pug noses unfamiliarity.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug does not nose unfamiliarity. ; $context$ = sent1: the pug is brunet. sent2: something does nose unfamiliarity if it does canvass specification. sent3: the coatee does not rush pug if there is something such that it is a kind of a brunet. sent4: The specification does not canvass pug. sent5: something does canvass specification and it is ipsilateral if it does not rush pug. sent6: the pug is not non-camphoric but it does not nose one-quadrillionth. sent7: if the sod does rush pug then either it is not ipsilateral or it does canvass specification or both. sent8: a unintelligent thing that does not toughen is not broadband. sent9: the pug does not canvass specification. sent10: everything is unintelligent and it does not toughen. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pug does not canvass specification.

that the sensitizing driven happens is not wrong.

sent1: the lenience happens and the nosing mailbox occurs. sent2: either the lenience does not occur or the nosing mailbox happens or both if the bossism does not occur. sent3: the slam occurs and the bossism happens. sent4: the sharpening occurs. sent5: the tabularness happens. sent6: the nosing mailbox happens. sent7: that the sensitizing driven occurs is prevented by that both the lenience and the bossism occurs. sent8: both the overexploitation and the dent happens.

{D}

sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} v {B}) sent3: ({E} & {C}) sent4: {IQ} sent5: {AK} sent6: {B} sent7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: ({JD} & {DD})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sensitizing driven occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the sensitizing driven happens is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the lenience happens and the nosing mailbox occurs. sent2: either the lenience does not occur or the nosing mailbox happens or both if the bossism does not occur. sent3: the slam occurs and the bossism happens. sent4: the sharpening occurs. sent5: the tabularness happens. sent6: the nosing mailbox happens. sent7: that the sensitizing driven occurs is prevented by that both the lenience and the bossism occurs. sent8: both the overexploitation and the dent happens. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the lenience occurs.; sent3 -> int2: the bossism happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lenience and the bossism occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lenience happens and the nosing mailbox occurs.

the leporide is not a mammon.

sent1: that something is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does beset is not true if it is not a skim. sent2: something is a kind of a mammon if it is a mobile. sent3: the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a surpriser and a FDA is incorrect. sent4: that the fishpond does not nose Simon or is not a Vaux or both is wrong if the argyrodite is not a Czestochowa. sent5: if the May is not socialistic it is not a kind of a skim and is not a drosophila. sent6: if that something is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does not nose carpetbagger is not correct then it nose carpetbagger. sent7: something is a mobile if it does not beset. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is a surpriser that is a FDA is false. sent9: there is something such that it is both not a surpriser and a FDA. sent10: if that the fishpond does not nose Simon or it is not a Vaux or both is wrong the May is not socialistic. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a surpriser and it is a FDA is not right. sent12: the argyrodite is not a Czestochowa. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-protrusive thing that besets is not true the fret is not a mammon. sent14: if the leporide does nose carpetbagger the pellicle is a kind of a wash-and-wear. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a mobile and it does nose carpetbagger is incorrect then the fact that the pellicle is not a mammon is correct. sent16: the fact that the pellicle is a FDA hold. sent17: if the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger then the leporide is mobile. sent18: if something is a surpriser then the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger. sent19: if something is mobile then that it is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does not nose carpetbagger is not true.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the leporide is not a mammon.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the leporide is not a mammon. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does beset is not true if it is not a skim. sent2: something is a kind of a mammon if it is a mobile. sent3: the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a surpriser and a FDA is incorrect. sent4: that the fishpond does not nose Simon or is not a Vaux or both is wrong if the argyrodite is not a Czestochowa. sent5: if the May is not socialistic it is not a kind of a skim and is not a drosophila. sent6: if that something is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does not nose carpetbagger is not correct then it nose carpetbagger. sent7: something is a mobile if it does not beset. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is a surpriser that is a FDA is false. sent9: there is something such that it is both not a surpriser and a FDA. sent10: if that the fishpond does not nose Simon or it is not a Vaux or both is wrong the May is not socialistic. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not a surpriser and it is a FDA is not right. sent12: the argyrodite is not a Czestochowa. sent13: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-protrusive thing that besets is not true the fret is not a mammon. sent14: if the leporide does nose carpetbagger the pellicle is a kind of a wash-and-wear. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a mobile and it does nose carpetbagger is incorrect then the fact that the pellicle is not a mammon is correct. sent16: the fact that the pellicle is a FDA hold. sent17: if the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger then the leporide is mobile. sent18: if something is a surpriser then the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger. sent19: if something is mobile then that it is a kind of non-protrusive thing that does not nose carpetbagger is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the leporide is a kind of a mobile.; sent2 -> int3: the fact that the leporide is a mammon hold if it is mobile.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is not a surpriser and it is a FDA is not right.

the caroche is carnal.

sent1: the blower is a hayfork. sent2: the blower does canvass government and is a Willebrand. sent3: something is a hayfork and/or it is carnal. sent4: the caroche is a pinkie. sent5: the caroche recumbs and it does rush pentaerythritol. sent6: the adductor is opening and it is an arthritic. sent7: if something is a kind of a hayfork then the fact that the blower is not carnal and it does not nose customer is not true. sent8: the caroche is carnal if that there is something such that it rushes gingham is true. sent9: either the caroche trumps or it is a Cedrela or both. sent10: the blower noses customer and it is a hayfork. sent11: everything financiers. sent12: the fact that the Dubonnet is not aspectual is correct if there is something such that that it is non-drupaceous thing that does nose shadflower is incorrect. sent13: if there is something such that it is not aspectual then the buckle is a hayfork but it does not rush gingham. sent14: the blower is carnal and it is a kind of a hayfork. sent15: the blower is carnal or is a hayfork or both. sent16: the fact that something is not drupaceous but it noses shadflower is false if it is a financier.

{D}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ({IS}{a} & {EU}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ({B}x v {D}x) sent4: {HN}{b} sent5: ({BF}{b} & {CR}{b}) sent6: ({HU}{n} & {FU}{n}) sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent8: (x): {C}x -> {D}{b} sent9: ({DR}{b} v {DC}{b}) sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: (x): {H}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: ({D}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ({D}{a} v {B}{a}) sent16: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the caroche is non-carnal.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caroche is carnal. ; $context$ = sent1: the blower is a hayfork. sent2: the blower does canvass government and is a Willebrand. sent3: something is a hayfork and/or it is carnal. sent4: the caroche is a pinkie. sent5: the caroche recumbs and it does rush pentaerythritol. sent6: the adductor is opening and it is an arthritic. sent7: if something is a kind of a hayfork then the fact that the blower is not carnal and it does not nose customer is not true. sent8: the caroche is carnal if that there is something such that it rushes gingham is true. sent9: either the caroche trumps or it is a Cedrela or both. sent10: the blower noses customer and it is a hayfork. sent11: everything financiers. sent12: the fact that the Dubonnet is not aspectual is correct if there is something such that that it is non-drupaceous thing that does nose shadflower is incorrect. sent13: if there is something such that it is not aspectual then the buckle is a hayfork but it does not rush gingham. sent14: the blower is carnal and it is a kind of a hayfork. sent15: the blower is carnal or is a hayfork or both. sent16: the fact that something is not drupaceous but it noses shadflower is false if it is a financier. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the blower noses customer and it is a hayfork.

the Guinness is not a Koran.

sent1: if the pug is Slavonic it does not punctuate and is not a airdock. sent2: the altostratus is unpronounceable if the fact that the hoarder is both not a pragmatist and unpronounceable does not hold. sent3: the fact that the ironclad does rush attitude and sensitizes chute does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the Guinness rushes attitude but it does not sensitize chute does not hold the ironclad is not a Koran. sent5: something is outdoors if it is unpronounceable. sent6: the Guinness does not rush attitude if that the ironclad sensitizes chute but it is not a Koran is not right. sent7: that the Guinness is not a Koran is right if the ironclad sensitizes chute. sent8: something does not nose souse if it is outdoors. sent9: if something mints then the rattrap is a backbench and it is a coupling. sent10: there exists nothing such that it does rush attitude and does sensitize chute. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is a mint is correct. sent12: if that the rattrap is both not a Mutawa'een and not woody is not true the fact that the hoarder is not woody hold. sent13: the Guinness does not rush attitude if that the ironclad is a kind of a Koran that does not sensitize chute is not correct. sent14: something is a kind of a harelip or it is Slavonic or both if it does not nose souse. sent15: if the rattrap is a backbench then the fact that it is not a Mutawa'een and it is not woody does not hold. sent16: if the altostratus is a kind of a harelip then the pug is Slavonic. sent17: if that the ironclad does rush attitude but it does not sensitize chute is not correct then the Guinness is not a Koran. sent18: if the fact that the ironclad rushes attitude and is not a Koran is false then the Guinness does not sensitize chute. sent19: if the ironclad is a Koran then the Guinness does not sensitize chute. sent20: the pug is Slavonic if the altostratus is Slavonic. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a pragmatist but it is unpronounceable is wrong if it is not woody.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Guinness is a kind of a Koran.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Guinness is not a Koran. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pug is Slavonic it does not punctuate and is not a airdock. sent2: the altostratus is unpronounceable if the fact that the hoarder is both not a pragmatist and unpronounceable does not hold. sent3: the fact that the ironclad does rush attitude and sensitizes chute does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the Guinness rushes attitude but it does not sensitize chute does not hold the ironclad is not a Koran. sent5: something is outdoors if it is unpronounceable. sent6: the Guinness does not rush attitude if that the ironclad sensitizes chute but it is not a Koran is not right. sent7: that the Guinness is not a Koran is right if the ironclad sensitizes chute. sent8: something does not nose souse if it is outdoors. sent9: if something mints then the rattrap is a backbench and it is a coupling. sent10: there exists nothing such that it does rush attitude and does sensitize chute. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is a mint is correct. sent12: if that the rattrap is both not a Mutawa'een and not woody is not true the fact that the hoarder is not woody hold. sent13: the Guinness does not rush attitude if that the ironclad is a kind of a Koran that does not sensitize chute is not correct. sent14: something is a kind of a harelip or it is Slavonic or both if it does not nose souse. sent15: if the rattrap is a backbench then the fact that it is not a Mutawa'een and it is not woody does not hold. sent16: if the altostratus is a kind of a harelip then the pug is Slavonic. sent17: if that the ironclad does rush attitude but it does not sensitize chute is not correct then the Guinness is not a Koran. sent18: if the fact that the ironclad rushes attitude and is not a Koran is false then the Guinness does not sensitize chute. sent19: if the ironclad is a Koran then the Guinness does not sensitize chute. sent20: the pug is Slavonic if the altostratus is Slavonic. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a pragmatist but it is unpronounceable is wrong if it is not woody. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the altostratus is a kind of a harelip then the pug is Slavonic.

that there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a Nuphar and not a potter is incorrect it is not undue is wrong.

sent1: if the fact that the gazebo does not crayon and it is not a Nuphar is false it is Hungarian. sent2: something is not undue if that it is not a Nuphar and it is not a kind of a potter is incorrect. sent3: if the damsel is both not a Nuphar and not a potter it is not undue. sent4: if the damsel is a kind of a Nuphar it is due. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Nuphar and it is a potter does not hold then it is not undue. sent6: if that something is a kind of a Nuphar is not wrong that it is not undue is not wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is a Nuphar it is not undue. sent8: if that something is not a kind of a Nuphar but it is a potter does not hold then it is not undue. sent9: if that something is not a Nuphar and not a potter is not true it is not due. sent10: the damsel is a kind of a deoxythymidine if that it is both not a Nuphar and not a pant is not correct. sent11: that if that the damsel is not spatial and it is not the potter is incorrect the damsel is a semiconductor is right. sent12: if the fact that the damsel is not a Nuphar but it is a potter is not right it is not undue. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Nuphar and it does not potter then it is not undue. sent14: something is not undue if it is not a Nuphar and does not potter. sent15: if the fact that the bodega is not spatial and not a epigraphy does not hold it is not undue.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: ¬(¬{FQ}{gl} & ¬{AA}{gl}) -> {HN}{gl} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{JJ}{aa}) -> {BI}{aa} sent11: ¬(¬{AM}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {HS}{aa} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ¬(¬{AM}{ft} & ¬{BS}{ft}) -> ¬{B}{ft}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a Nuphar and not a potter is incorrect it is not undue is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the gazebo does not crayon and it is not a Nuphar is false it is Hungarian. sent2: something is not undue if that it is not a Nuphar and it is not a kind of a potter is incorrect. sent3: if the damsel is both not a Nuphar and not a potter it is not undue. sent4: if the damsel is a kind of a Nuphar it is due. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Nuphar and it is a potter does not hold then it is not undue. sent6: if that something is a kind of a Nuphar is not wrong that it is not undue is not wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it is a Nuphar it is not undue. sent8: if that something is not a kind of a Nuphar but it is a potter does not hold then it is not undue. sent9: if that something is not a Nuphar and not a potter is not true it is not due. sent10: the damsel is a kind of a deoxythymidine if that it is both not a Nuphar and not a pant is not correct. sent11: that if that the damsel is not spatial and it is not the potter is incorrect the damsel is a semiconductor is right. sent12: if the fact that the damsel is not a Nuphar but it is a potter is not right it is not undue. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Nuphar and it does not potter then it is not undue. sent14: something is not undue if it is not a Nuphar and does not potter. sent15: if the fact that the bodega is not spatial and not a epigraphy does not hold it is not undue. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the damsel is not undue is correct if the fact that it is not a kind of a Nuphar and it does not potter does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not undue if that it is not a Nuphar and it is not a kind of a potter is incorrect.

there is something such that if it is sensory it does not nose tribalization.

sent1: something noses tribalization if it is a yardgrass. sent2: there is something such that if it is not non-sensory then it noses tribalization. sent3: if the archdiocese is sensory then it does nose tribalization. sent4: the archdiocese is a yardgrass if it is sensory. sent5: the archdiocese is a right. sent6: there is something such that if it is crustal it does not nose Mergus.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: {AR}{a} sent6: (Ex): {F}x -> ¬{CC}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is sensory it does not nose tribalization. ; $context$ = sent1: something noses tribalization if it is a yardgrass. sent2: there is something such that if it is not non-sensory then it noses tribalization. sent3: if the archdiocese is sensory then it does nose tribalization. sent4: the archdiocese is a yardgrass if it is sensory. sent5: the archdiocese is a right. sent6: there is something such that if it is crustal it does not nose Mergus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the archdiocese is a yardgrass if it is sensory.

the nosing goblet does not occur.

sent1: the canvassing deviation occurs. sent2: the nosing goblet does not occur if the hassle occurs and/or the canvassing deviation occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {B} sent2: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the nosing goblet does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the canvassing deviation occurs. sent2: the nosing goblet does not occur if the hassle occurs and/or the canvassing deviation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: either the hassle happens or the canvassing deviation happens or both.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the canvassing deviation occurs.

the fact that the yachtsman is not a storeroom is not incorrect.

sent1: the quellung does not canvass peseta. sent2: everything does canvass sandbagger. sent3: the yachtsman is not a storeroom if something that does reference does rush G-man. sent4: something does reference and is a storeroom. sent5: the scorpaenoid is a kind of a evolutionist that does reference. sent6: everything does rush trauma and it is polar. sent7: the yachtsman is not a hyponym. sent8: there is nothing such that that it is a Helen and it is a reference is not wrong. sent9: the quellung is a reference and it is a storeroom. sent10: if something does not rush G-man and is not a kind of a reference then it is not a storeroom. sent11: everything is a taupe. sent12: everything is healthful. sent13: everything does reference and does rush G-man. sent14: something is a storeroom and it does reference. sent15: everything is both Adonic and a butchery. sent16: there exists something such that it does rush G-man. sent17: the jockey does rush G-man if the axle is a Helen that does not rush G-man. sent18: the updraft is a kind of a reference. sent19: if something is not satiate and it does not sensitize incomprehensibility then it does not rush G-man. sent20: the quellung is a Amazon and it mediates. sent21: the yachtsman rushes G-man. sent22: something references.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ¬{AR}{aa} sent2: (x): {FB}x sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) sent5: ({CH}{gn} & {A}{gn}) sent6: (x): ({FH}x & {HG}x) sent7: ¬{DN}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent9: ({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent10: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent11: (x): {CN}x sent12: (x): {HS}x sent13: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent14: (Ex): ({C}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): ({ES}x & {CT}x) sent16: (Ex): {B}x sent17: ({D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent18: {A}{iq} sent19: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{B}x sent20: ({HC}{aa} & {GD}{aa}) sent21: {B}{a} sent22: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

the yachtsman is a storeroom.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the yachtsman is not a storeroom is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the quellung does not canvass peseta. sent2: everything does canvass sandbagger. sent3: the yachtsman is not a storeroom if something that does reference does rush G-man. sent4: something does reference and is a storeroom. sent5: the scorpaenoid is a kind of a evolutionist that does reference. sent6: everything does rush trauma and it is polar. sent7: the yachtsman is not a hyponym. sent8: there is nothing such that that it is a Helen and it is a reference is not wrong. sent9: the quellung is a reference and it is a storeroom. sent10: if something does not rush G-man and is not a kind of a reference then it is not a storeroom. sent11: everything is a taupe. sent12: everything is healthful. sent13: everything does reference and does rush G-man. sent14: something is a storeroom and it does reference. sent15: everything is both Adonic and a butchery. sent16: there exists something such that it does rush G-man. sent17: the jockey does rush G-man if the axle is a Helen that does not rush G-man. sent18: the updraft is a kind of a reference. sent19: if something is not satiate and it does not sensitize incomprehensibility then it does not rush G-man. sent20: the quellung is a Amazon and it mediates. sent21: the yachtsman rushes G-man. sent22: something references. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the quellung is a reference and does rush G-man.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is a reference that rushes G-man.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything does reference and does rush G-man.

the toothbrush does canvass casuistry and it does canvass carrageen.

sent1: the bairn does not canvass lutist but it does canvass casuistry. sent2: the bairn seels and it is a Sodom. sent3: that if the bairn does not canvass lutist and canvasses carrageen the toothbrush canvasses carrageen is correct. sent4: the fact that the toothbrush is a Megillah is not wrong if it canvasses carrageen. sent5: the fact that something canvasses casuistry and does canvass carrageen is not correct if it is not a Sodom. sent6: the toothbrush does canvass carrageen if the bairn is not a Sodom and does canvass carrageen. sent7: the toothbrush is anthracitic if it noses Rilke. sent8: the bairn canvasses Lycaenidae and is a bullfight. sent9: the toothbrush is a Sodom if the fact that the bairn does not canvass casuistry and is a kind of a Sodom is not wrong. sent10: the toothbrush is not a Sodom if the bairn does not canvass lutist and is not a kind of a Sodom. sent11: the bairn does not canvass lutist. sent12: the bairn canvasses lutist if the toothbrush does not canvass carrageen and canvasses lutist. sent13: the bairn is a kind of a Sodom. sent14: if the fact that the bairn does canvass lutist and does canvass carrageen is correct that the toothbrush does canvass carrageen is right. sent15: the bairn is both a Sodom and a affusion. sent16: the bairn does not canvass lutist if that the sarcoplasm is Milanese but it does not canvass Heterocephalus is not true. sent17: that the scalp is a kind of a Sodom hold. sent18: the toothbrush is a Sodom. sent19: that the sarcoplasm is a Milanese but it does not canvass Heterocephalus is false. sent20: the fact that the toothbrush canvasses casuistry hold if the bairn does not canvass carrageen and does canvasses casuistry. sent21: the bairn is a Sodom if it canvasses carrageen. sent22: if the toothbrush is a Sodom then it does canvass casuistry. sent23: the bairn does not canvass lutist and canvasses carrageen.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: (¬{E}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ({IQ}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent4: {C}{a} -> {F}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent6: (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent7: {GQ}{a} -> {EQ}{a} sent8: ({HU}{b} & {IF}{b}) sent9: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent10: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{E}{b} sent12: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent13: {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent15: ({A}{b} & {BM}{b}) sent16: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent17: {A}{m} sent18: {A}{a} sent19: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent20: (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent21: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent22: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent23: (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

that the toothbrush canvasses casuistry and does canvass carrageen is false.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the toothbrush does canvass casuistry and it does canvass carrageen. ; $context$ = sent1: the bairn does not canvass lutist but it does canvass casuistry. sent2: the bairn seels and it is a Sodom. sent3: that if the bairn does not canvass lutist and canvasses carrageen the toothbrush canvasses carrageen is correct. sent4: the fact that the toothbrush is a Megillah is not wrong if it canvasses carrageen. sent5: the fact that something canvasses casuistry and does canvass carrageen is not correct if it is not a Sodom. sent6: the toothbrush does canvass carrageen if the bairn is not a Sodom and does canvass carrageen. sent7: the toothbrush is anthracitic if it noses Rilke. sent8: the bairn canvasses Lycaenidae and is a bullfight. sent9: the toothbrush is a Sodom if the fact that the bairn does not canvass casuistry and is a kind of a Sodom is not wrong. sent10: the toothbrush is not a Sodom if the bairn does not canvass lutist and is not a kind of a Sodom. sent11: the bairn does not canvass lutist. sent12: the bairn canvasses lutist if the toothbrush does not canvass carrageen and canvasses lutist. sent13: the bairn is a kind of a Sodom. sent14: if the fact that the bairn does canvass lutist and does canvass carrageen is correct that the toothbrush does canvass carrageen is right. sent15: the bairn is both a Sodom and a affusion. sent16: the bairn does not canvass lutist if that the sarcoplasm is Milanese but it does not canvass Heterocephalus is not true. sent17: that the scalp is a kind of a Sodom hold. sent18: the toothbrush is a Sodom. sent19: that the sarcoplasm is a Milanese but it does not canvass Heterocephalus is false. sent20: the fact that the toothbrush canvasses casuistry hold if the bairn does not canvass carrageen and does canvasses casuistry. sent21: the bairn is a Sodom if it canvasses carrageen. sent22: if the toothbrush is a Sodom then it does canvass casuistry. sent23: the bairn does not canvass lutist and canvasses carrageen. ; $proof$ =

sent22 & sent18 -> int1: the toothbrush canvasses casuistry.; sent3 & sent23 -> int2: that the toothbrush does canvass carrageen is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the toothbrush is a Sodom then it does canvass casuistry.

the barrack is epigastric and/or a stockfish.

sent1: the barrack either does canvass Epona or is a kind of a masquerade or both. sent2: the Interior does not canvass laser and is a proposition. sent3: the barrack is chalky and/or is a stockfish. sent4: the barrack is a throb and/or it noses displeasure. sent5: the barrack is cytoplasmic. sent6: the herder does canker and/or is a mecopteran. sent7: the mod is nonparametric and/or it canvasses Epona. sent8: something does not rush barrack if it is not a Eolithic and it is unexportable. sent9: the barrack does canvass Epona if it is not immunosuppressive and is dystopian. sent10: the barrack is a kind of a stockfish and/or it is a daphne. sent11: if the barrack is not a dopamine but it does canvass Epona it is epigastric. sent12: the barrack does canvass Epona. sent13: the hijab is both not a dopamine and Guinean. sent14: the barrack is not non-cystic. sent15: the barrack does not sensitize earldom and canvasses laser. sent16: the barrack is non-imprecise thing that is not non-cystic. sent17: the Tree does not nose displeasure and canvasses Epona. sent18: the barrack is not a dopamine but it does canvass Epona.

({B}{a} v {A}{a})

sent1: ({AB}{a} v {HG}{a}) sent2: (¬{FL}{hm} & {FA}{hm}) sent3: ({HJ}{a} v {A}{a}) sent4: ({GU}{a} v {BP}{a}) sent5: {BM}{a} sent6: ({EP}{bm} v {FK}{bm}) sent7: ({HI}{fn} v {AB}{fn}) sent8: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: (¬{DU}{a} & {R}{a}) -> {AB}{a} sent10: ({A}{a} v {EL}{a}) sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent12: {AB}{a} sent13: (¬{AA}{ad} & {ET}{ad}) sent14: {AR}{a} sent15: (¬{CJ}{a} & {FL}{a}) sent16: (¬{EM}{a} & {AR}{a}) sent17: (¬{BP}{hd} & {AB}{hd}) sent18: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

that the barrack is epigastric or is a kind of a stockfish or both is false.

¬({B}{a} v {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barrack is epigastric and/or a stockfish. ; $context$ = sent1: the barrack either does canvass Epona or is a kind of a masquerade or both. sent2: the Interior does not canvass laser and is a proposition. sent3: the barrack is chalky and/or is a stockfish. sent4: the barrack is a throb and/or it noses displeasure. sent5: the barrack is cytoplasmic. sent6: the herder does canker and/or is a mecopteran. sent7: the mod is nonparametric and/or it canvasses Epona. sent8: something does not rush barrack if it is not a Eolithic and it is unexportable. sent9: the barrack does canvass Epona if it is not immunosuppressive and is dystopian. sent10: the barrack is a kind of a stockfish and/or it is a daphne. sent11: if the barrack is not a dopamine but it does canvass Epona it is epigastric. sent12: the barrack does canvass Epona. sent13: the hijab is both not a dopamine and Guinean. sent14: the barrack is not non-cystic. sent15: the barrack does not sensitize earldom and canvasses laser. sent16: the barrack is non-imprecise thing that is not non-cystic. sent17: the Tree does not nose displeasure and canvasses Epona. sent18: the barrack is not a dopamine but it does canvass Epona. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent18 -> int1: the barrack is not non-epigastric.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the barrack is not a dopamine but it does canvass Epona it is epigastric.

the fact that the mod is not a Ingrian hold.

sent1: the marjoram is not corrupt. sent2: if something is a actinia then that it does not rush quill and noses phone-in is false. sent3: the mod is not a kind of a Ingrian if the Argonaut is corrupt and non-dialectal. sent4: that the lapin is not corrupt hold. sent5: that something is polar and dialectal is not right if it does not nose phone-in. sent6: the mod is a disposition and is not .38-caliber. sent7: the mod is a kind of a disposition and is not a Lorraine. sent8: if the fact that the Argonaut does not rush quill but it noses phone-in is not correct that it does not noses phone-in is correct. sent9: the involution is a Ingrian. sent10: the mod is not dialectal if the fact that the Argonaut is polar and it is dialectal is not true. sent11: the mod corrupts. sent12: the Argonaut is not dialectal. sent13: the Argonaut corrupts.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{bi} sent2: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{ej} sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {B}x) sent6: ({EF}{b} & ¬{CD}{b}) sent7: ({EF}{b} & ¬{AH}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent9: {C}{fr} sent10: ¬({D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: {A}{b} sent12: ¬{B}{a} sent13: {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the mod is a Ingrian.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mod is not a Ingrian hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the marjoram is not corrupt. sent2: if something is a actinia then that it does not rush quill and noses phone-in is false. sent3: the mod is not a kind of a Ingrian if the Argonaut is corrupt and non-dialectal. sent4: that the lapin is not corrupt hold. sent5: that something is polar and dialectal is not right if it does not nose phone-in. sent6: the mod is a disposition and is not .38-caliber. sent7: the mod is a kind of a disposition and is not a Lorraine. sent8: if the fact that the Argonaut does not rush quill but it noses phone-in is not correct that it does not noses phone-in is correct. sent9: the involution is a Ingrian. sent10: the mod is not dialectal if the fact that the Argonaut is polar and it is dialectal is not true. sent11: the mod corrupts. sent12: the Argonaut is not dialectal. sent13: the Argonaut corrupts. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent12 -> int1: that the Argonaut is corrupt but it is not dialectal is correct.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Argonaut corrupts.

the langur is not centering.

sent1: the green is not argumentative if it is a seconder and it is not socialistic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is a gaur and is not an object is incorrect the devilfish is an object. sent3: something does center if it does nose absentee. sent4: the fact that the fact that the langur is centering and is argumentative is wrong is correct. sent5: the breechloader does object if the fact that the devilfish is an object is not incorrect. sent6: the green noses absentee if the phasianid is argumentative. sent7: the green is a seconder but it is not socialistic. sent8: the fact that something is a gaur that is not an object is not true if it is a disinterested. sent9: that the phasianid does not nose absentee and is a kind of a tellurian does not hold if the green is not argumentative. sent10: that the langur is centering a tellurian is wrong. sent11: if the green is a centering then the langur centering. sent12: if the green noses absentee but it is not a kind of a seconder then it is not socialistic. sent13: if the breechloader is a kind of an object that it is tellurian is not wrong. sent14: the phasianid is argumentative and/or is a tellurian if there is something such that the fact that it is not tellurian is not false. sent15: the green does not center if it is argumentative thing that is not a seconder. sent16: if the phasianid is not argumentative then that the green is a kind of non-tellurian thing that noses absentee does not hold. sent17: if that the phasianid does not nose absentee and is a tellurian does not hold then that the langur is not centering is not false. sent18: if the rig does not rush breechloader it is not ritual. sent19: the East is not incorrigible if something that is not hemodynamics does not canvass stewing. sent20: that the phasianid is a seconder and is socialistic is incorrect if the green does not nose absentee. sent21: if that the East is not incorrigible is not wrong then that the picker is a kind of a disinterested and it is a harmonization is not false. sent22: if the green is a kind of a seconder that is socialistic then it is not argumentative. sent23: if something is not a ritual then it is not hemodynamics and it does not canvass stewing. sent24: that the rig does not rush breechloader is not incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}{e} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent4: ¬({D}{c} & {B}{c}) sent5: {E}{e} -> {E}{d} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent7: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: ¬({D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent11: {D}{a} -> {D}{c} sent12: ({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent13: {E}{d} -> {C}{d} sent14: (x): {C}x -> ({B}{b} v {C}{b}) sent15: ({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent17: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent18: ¬{M}{h} -> ¬{L}{h} sent19: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{I}{g} sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent21: ¬{I}{g} -> ({F}{f} & {H}{f}) sent22: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent23: (x): ¬{L}x -> (¬{K}x & ¬{J}x) sent24: ¬{M}{h}

PROVED

PROVED

the langur does center.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the langur is not centering. ; $context$ = sent1: the green is not argumentative if it is a seconder and it is not socialistic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is a gaur and is not an object is incorrect the devilfish is an object. sent3: something does center if it does nose absentee. sent4: the fact that the fact that the langur is centering and is argumentative is wrong is correct. sent5: the breechloader does object if the fact that the devilfish is an object is not incorrect. sent6: the green noses absentee if the phasianid is argumentative. sent7: the green is a seconder but it is not socialistic. sent8: the fact that something is a gaur that is not an object is not true if it is a disinterested. sent9: that the phasianid does not nose absentee and is a kind of a tellurian does not hold if the green is not argumentative. sent10: that the langur is centering a tellurian is wrong. sent11: if the green is a centering then the langur centering. sent12: if the green noses absentee but it is not a kind of a seconder then it is not socialistic. sent13: if the breechloader is a kind of an object that it is tellurian is not wrong. sent14: the phasianid is argumentative and/or is a tellurian if there is something such that the fact that it is not tellurian is not false. sent15: the green does not center if it is argumentative thing that is not a seconder. sent16: if the phasianid is not argumentative then that the green is a kind of non-tellurian thing that noses absentee does not hold. sent17: if that the phasianid does not nose absentee and is a tellurian does not hold then that the langur is not centering is not false. sent18: if the rig does not rush breechloader it is not ritual. sent19: the East is not incorrigible if something that is not hemodynamics does not canvass stewing. sent20: that the phasianid is a seconder and is socialistic is incorrect if the green does not nose absentee. sent21: if that the East is not incorrigible is not wrong then that the picker is a kind of a disinterested and it is a harmonization is not false. sent22: if the green is a kind of a seconder that is socialistic then it is not argumentative. sent23: if something is not a ritual then it is not hemodynamics and it does not canvass stewing. sent24: that the rig does not rush breechloader is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the green is not argumentative.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the phasianid does not nose absentee but it is tellurian is not right.; int2 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the green is not argumentative if it is a seconder and it is not socialistic.

that there exists something such that if the fact that it does not tram and does not rush Yevtushenko is incorrect then it is a kind of a right does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is inexpedient it is hemolytic. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Low and it is not apostolic is wrong then it noses Merckx. sent3: there exists something such that if that it noses dicloxacillin and is not implacable does not hold then it is a parquetry. sent4: the baseboard does canvass overanxiety if that the fact that it is not a dope and it does not tram is not incorrect does not hold. sent5: if the steamroller does not canvass sadness and does not tram it is a kind of an expansion. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a cleared and it surrounds is incorrect it is a kind of a Albuquerque hold. sent7: the rentier is a right if it is not anastomotic and it does not chord. sent8: the pug does tram if that it is a kind of non-eponymous thing that is not a hedgehog is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the rentier does not tram and does not rush Yevtushenko is incorrect then it is right. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not commodious and is not photometric is not correct that it is a Bucerotidae is not false. sent11: the yogi is a kind of a metropolitan if the fact that it is non-right thing that does not rob hold.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: (Ex): {JJ}x -> {FB}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{EH}x & ¬{GS}x) -> {U}x sent3: (Ex): ¬({GP}x & ¬{GL}x) -> {IS}x sent4: ¬(¬{FL}{p} & ¬{AA}{p}) -> {AJ}{p} sent5: (¬{CT}{it} & ¬{AA}{it}) -> {EM}{it} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{IT}x & {IJ}x) -> {BK}x sent7: (¬{AE}{aa} & ¬{AG}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬(¬{BG}{ea} & ¬{GC}{ea}) -> {AA}{ea} sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{AU}x & ¬{EC}x) -> {CF}x sent11: (¬{B}{ep} & ¬{AT}{ep}) -> {DG}{ep}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if the fact that it does not tram and does not rush Yevtushenko is incorrect then it is a kind of a right does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is inexpedient it is hemolytic. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Low and it is not apostolic is wrong then it noses Merckx. sent3: there exists something such that if that it noses dicloxacillin and is not implacable does not hold then it is a parquetry. sent4: the baseboard does canvass overanxiety if that the fact that it is not a dope and it does not tram is not incorrect does not hold. sent5: if the steamroller does not canvass sadness and does not tram it is a kind of an expansion. sent6: the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a cleared and it surrounds is incorrect it is a kind of a Albuquerque hold. sent7: the rentier is a right if it is not anastomotic and it does not chord. sent8: the pug does tram if that it is a kind of non-eponymous thing that is not a hedgehog is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the rentier does not tram and does not rush Yevtushenko is incorrect then it is right. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not commodious and is not photometric is not correct that it is a Bucerotidae is not false. sent11: the yogi is a kind of a metropolitan if the fact that it is non-right thing that does not rob hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the rentier does not tram and does not rush Yevtushenko is incorrect then it is right.

the rushing orangeade occurs.

sent1: the nosing synergy does not occur if the fact that the nosing synergy occurs and the rushing nonalignment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the lexicalness occurs that the nosing synergy happens is right. sent3: the triumph does not occur if the fact that not the laziness but the triumph happens does not hold. sent4: the lexicalness and/or the triumph happens. sent5: the crazing and/or the nonmagneticness happens. sent6: if that the laziness occurs is not incorrect the rushing orangeade does not occur. sent7: the bidding happens if the canvassing rescuer occurs. sent8: the amnesty does not occur if the jolly happens or the twang happens or both. sent9: that the nosing synergy happens and/or that the laziness occurs brings about that the rushing orangeade does not occur. sent10: the flip does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent11: that the nosing synergy does not occur is prevented by the triumph. sent12: the nosing bibliotist happens.

{E}

sent1: ¬({C} & {G}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ({A} v {B}) sent5: ({L} v {DK}) sent6: {D} -> ¬{E} sent7: {AK} -> {CU} sent8: ({FM} v {BU}) -> ¬{IL} sent9: ({C} v {D}) -> ¬{E} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬{IB} sent11: {B} -> {C} sent12: {BJ}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the rushing orangeade occurs.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rushing orangeade occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the nosing synergy does not occur if the fact that the nosing synergy occurs and the rushing nonalignment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the lexicalness occurs that the nosing synergy happens is right. sent3: the triumph does not occur if the fact that not the laziness but the triumph happens does not hold. sent4: the lexicalness and/or the triumph happens. sent5: the crazing and/or the nonmagneticness happens. sent6: if that the laziness occurs is not incorrect the rushing orangeade does not occur. sent7: the bidding happens if the canvassing rescuer occurs. sent8: the amnesty does not occur if the jolly happens or the twang happens or both. sent9: that the nosing synergy happens and/or that the laziness occurs brings about that the rushing orangeade does not occur. sent10: the flip does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent11: that the nosing synergy does not occur is prevented by the triumph. sent12: the nosing bibliotist happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the nosing synergy happens.; int1 -> int2: either the nosing synergy or the laziness or both happens.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lexicalness and/or the triumph happens.

the fact that the habitat is not substantival is not wrong.

sent1: if the whip-scorpion is actable and it slenderizes then the habitat is not substantival. sent2: if something is not actable it is substantival and is a chauffeur. sent3: there is something such that it is not a chauffeur. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a chauffeur then the whip-scorpion is actable. sent5: that the whip-scorpion is a stonecrop but it does not slenderize is not right if it is not a convoy.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the habitat is substantival.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the habitat is not substantival is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the whip-scorpion is actable and it slenderizes then the habitat is not substantival. sent2: if something is not actable it is substantival and is a chauffeur. sent3: there is something such that it is not a chauffeur. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a chauffeur then the whip-scorpion is actable. sent5: that the whip-scorpion is a stonecrop but it does not slenderize is not right if it is not a convoy. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a chauffeur.

the western happens.

sent1: the rushing sentimentalist does not occur and/or the episcopate does not occur. sent2: the canvassing strength occurs. sent3: that the insectanness does not occur and/or the canvassing fitting does not occur is triggered by that the installment occurs. sent4: the chorionicness occurs. sent5: the accountancy occurs. sent6: either the commercial does not occur or the unrepeatableness does not occur or both. sent7: the nosing Aspergillus does not occur and/or the airing does not occur. sent8: the dynasticness yields that the canvassing strength does not occur and/or that the jingoism does not occur. sent9: the stridulation leads to that either the tractiveness does not occur or the accountancy does not occur or both. sent10: the amylolyticness does not occur or the canvassing tribalization happens or both. sent11: the capableness does not occur or the monte does not occur or both if the fact that the nosing finger happens is correct. sent12: that either the canvassing RAF does not occur or the frame does not occur or both is wrong. sent13: the steerage does not occur. sent14: either the fiscalness does not occur or the pressing does not occur or both. sent15: the nosing finger does not occur and/or the ungulate occurs. sent16: that the autogeneticness does not occur and/or the rushing silurid does not occur is not true. sent17: the fact that the tractiveness does not occur and/or the accountancy does not occur is wrong if the western does not occur. sent18: that the ungulateness occurs is not false. sent19: the flamenco does not occur and/or the nosing barrack happens. sent20: if the fact that the nosing dynamics and the stridulation occurs is wrong then the western does not occur. sent21: if the western does not occur the accountancy occurs.

{A}

sent1: (¬{FC} v ¬{BK}) sent2: {JA} sent3: {ID} -> (¬{HU} v ¬{FF}) sent4: {HI} sent5: {AB} sent6: (¬{GU} v ¬{CS}) sent7: (¬{HF} v ¬{DU}) sent8: {JK} -> (¬{JA} v ¬{FQ}) sent9: {B} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent10: (¬{GG} v {ES}) sent11: {AE} -> (¬{JH} v ¬{CG}) sent12: ¬(¬{BU} v ¬{ET}) sent13: ¬{H} sent14: (¬{BT} v ¬{EC}) sent15: (¬{AE} v {FN}) sent16: ¬(¬{ER} v ¬{DP}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent18: {FN} sent19: (¬{AC} v {N}) sent20: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent21: ¬{A} -> {AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the western does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the western happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rushing sentimentalist does not occur and/or the episcopate does not occur. sent2: the canvassing strength occurs. sent3: that the insectanness does not occur and/or the canvassing fitting does not occur is triggered by that the installment occurs. sent4: the chorionicness occurs. sent5: the accountancy occurs. sent6: either the commercial does not occur or the unrepeatableness does not occur or both. sent7: the nosing Aspergillus does not occur and/or the airing does not occur. sent8: the dynasticness yields that the canvassing strength does not occur and/or that the jingoism does not occur. sent9: the stridulation leads to that either the tractiveness does not occur or the accountancy does not occur or both. sent10: the amylolyticness does not occur or the canvassing tribalization happens or both. sent11: the capableness does not occur or the monte does not occur or both if the fact that the nosing finger happens is correct. sent12: that either the canvassing RAF does not occur or the frame does not occur or both is wrong. sent13: the steerage does not occur. sent14: either the fiscalness does not occur or the pressing does not occur or both. sent15: the nosing finger does not occur and/or the ungulate occurs. sent16: that the autogeneticness does not occur and/or the rushing silurid does not occur is not true. sent17: the fact that the tractiveness does not occur and/or the accountancy does not occur is wrong if the western does not occur. sent18: that the ungulateness occurs is not false. sent19: the flamenco does not occur and/or the nosing barrack happens. sent20: if the fact that the nosing dynamics and the stridulation occurs is wrong then the western does not occur. sent21: if the western does not occur the accountancy occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the tractiveness does not occur and/or the accountancy does not occur is wrong if the western does not occur.

the maul is not obligatory.

sent1: the agglutination is illicit if there is something such that the fact that either it does ligate or it is not a Attilio or both is false. sent2: that the fact that the agglutination is non-geological thing that is a kind of a Attilio is wrong is correct. sent3: if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory. sent4: the fact that that the agglutination is geological and it is a Attilio is not right is not false. sent5: the maul is illicit and it ligates. sent6: if that the agglutination is a kind of non-geological thing that is a Attilio is wrong then the maul is a Attilio. sent7: the agglutination noses Idaho if it is a splat and is not a flatbed.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {P}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the agglutination is illicit and it does nose Idaho.

({A}{b} & {P}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the maul is not obligatory. ; $context$ = sent1: the agglutination is illicit if there is something such that the fact that either it does ligate or it is not a Attilio or both is false. sent2: that the fact that the agglutination is non-geological thing that is a kind of a Attilio is wrong is correct. sent3: if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory. sent4: the fact that that the agglutination is geological and it is a Attilio is not right is not false. sent5: the maul is illicit and it ligates. sent6: if that the agglutination is a kind of non-geological thing that is a Attilio is wrong then the maul is a Attilio. sent7: the agglutination noses Idaho if it is a splat and is not a flatbed. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the maul is illicit is right.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: that the maul is a Attilio is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio.; sent3 -> int4: if the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio it is not obligatory.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the maul is illicit and it ligates.

the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens.

sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true.

({C} & ¬{A})

sent1: ¬({CD} & {GT}) sent2: {EO} -> ¬({II} & {IH}) sent3: ¬({GR} & {AC}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: {DC} -> {FI} sent6: {FI} -> {H} sent7: {FL} -> ¬({DN} & ¬{BD}) sent8: ¬({CL} & {CP}) sent9: ¬({HS} & {GS}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent11: ¬(¬{DL} & {JH}) -> {ID} sent12: ¬({FL} & {JD}) sent13: {DC} -> ¬({EG} & ¬{IP}) sent14: {IJ} -> ¬({BF} & {AK}) sent15: ¬({R} & {FS}) sent16: ¬({DH} & {HL}) sent17: ¬({S} & ¬{AU}) sent18: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent19: ¬({DN} & {DF})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the breezing occurs.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens.

that something is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist does not hold.

sent1: the psocid is solanaceous and does not canvass acupuncture. sent2: if something is a kind of a Phyllostomus it is solanaceous. sent3: if the territory is not insubordinate but it does rush Desmanthus then the crawler does not rush Desmanthus. sent4: if something is a kind of a Secale then it does cork and it does not conspire. sent5: if the fact that the psocid is a keelson hold that it is impermanent is not wrong. sent6: something that is a Phyllostomus is a intentness that does not canvass sentimentalist. sent7: something is insubordinate and is not a century. sent8: something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus. sent9: everything is a matter. sent10: the psocid is solanaceous if it is a kind of a Phyllostomus. sent11: if the assemblyman sells that it is a neuter hold. sent12: everything is a Phyllostomus. sent13: the psocid is a kind of a neomycin but it is not a peel. sent14: something is solanaceous. sent15: if the transactor is a kind of a Phyllostomus then that it does rush Abyssinian and it is not a kind of a feminist is not false. sent16: if something is a Phyllostomus it is a kind of a trade-in. sent17: the psocid is solanaceous. sent18: there exists something such that it souses and is not a poltergeist. sent19: everything is a protest. sent20: the territory is not insubordinate but it rushes Desmanthus if it does castle. sent21: there exists something such that it does not castle.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{CP}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x sent3: (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (x): {U}x -> ({FM}x & ¬{FK}x) sent5: {AT}{aa} -> {BC}{aa} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({II}x & ¬{JE}x) sent7: (Ex): ({E}x & ¬{JI}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): {FP}x sent10: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent11: {IS}{ir} -> {HP}{ir} sent12: (x): {A}x sent13: ({DF}{aa} & ¬{DT}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {AA}x sent15: {A}{fd} -> ({I}{fd} & ¬{DU}{fd}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> {FS}x sent17: {AA}{aa} sent18: (Ex): ({GA}x & ¬{CO}x) sent19: (x): {HC}x sent20: {D}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent21: (Ex): ¬{D}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there is something such that it is a kind of a intentness and it does not canvass sentimentalist.

(Ex): ({II}x & ¬{JE}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the psocid is solanaceous and does not canvass acupuncture. sent2: if something is a kind of a Phyllostomus it is solanaceous. sent3: if the territory is not insubordinate but it does rush Desmanthus then the crawler does not rush Desmanthus. sent4: if something is a kind of a Secale then it does cork and it does not conspire. sent5: if the fact that the psocid is a keelson hold that it is impermanent is not wrong. sent6: something that is a Phyllostomus is a intentness that does not canvass sentimentalist. sent7: something is insubordinate and is not a century. sent8: something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus. sent9: everything is a matter. sent10: the psocid is solanaceous if it is a kind of a Phyllostomus. sent11: if the assemblyman sells that it is a neuter hold. sent12: everything is a Phyllostomus. sent13: the psocid is a kind of a neomycin but it is not a peel. sent14: something is solanaceous. sent15: if the transactor is a kind of a Phyllostomus then that it does rush Abyssinian and it is not a kind of a feminist is not false. sent16: if something is a Phyllostomus it is a kind of a trade-in. sent17: the psocid is solanaceous. sent18: there exists something such that it souses and is not a poltergeist. sent19: everything is a protest. sent20: the territory is not insubordinate but it rushes Desmanthus if it does castle. sent21: there exists something such that it does not castle. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the psocid is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.; sent12 -> int2: the psocid is a kind of a Phyllostomus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the psocid is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.

the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold.

sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.

¬({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{F} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {GC}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{DQ} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent11: ({E} v {F}) sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} v ¬{F})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the expiratoriness happens is not wrong.

{GC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs.

the horsepond is a kind of non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon.

sent1: if something is a Boxer either the moss is a kind of a Boxer or it is a material or both. sent2: if the moss is a Boxer the fact that the horsepond is a Boxer is not false. sent3: the pug is agrobiologic. sent4: if that the torturer is not agrobiologic and is not a zone is incorrect the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon. sent5: if something is a kind of a Boxer the fact that it noses Lidocaine is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a manfulness. sent7: if the moss is unsystematic then that the horsepond canvasses Macrocephalon is not incorrect. sent8: if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess. sent9: if the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon then it rushes Malevich and is not systematic. sent10: the moss is not immoral but it does canvass Macrocephalon. sent11: if the moss is unsystematic the horsepond is non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. sent12: the horsepond does canvass Macrocephalon. sent13: the car is a Boxer and is a enucleation if something is not a manfulness. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not paranormal and it is a wadi is not true. sent15: if the moss is material the horsepond is a Boxer. sent16: the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal.

(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the horsepond is not a kind of a griminess and does nose Lidocaine.

(¬{CB}{b} & {AH}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the horsepond is a kind of non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Boxer either the moss is a kind of a Boxer or it is a material or both. sent2: if the moss is a Boxer the fact that the horsepond is a Boxer is not false. sent3: the pug is agrobiologic. sent4: if that the torturer is not agrobiologic and is not a zone is incorrect the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon. sent5: if something is a kind of a Boxer the fact that it noses Lidocaine is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a manfulness. sent7: if the moss is unsystematic then that the horsepond canvasses Macrocephalon is not incorrect. sent8: if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess. sent9: if the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon then it rushes Malevich and is not systematic. sent10: the moss is not immoral but it does canvass Macrocephalon. sent11: if the moss is unsystematic the horsepond is non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. sent12: the horsepond does canvass Macrocephalon. sent13: the car is a Boxer and is a enucleation if something is not a manfulness. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not paranormal and it is a wadi is not true. sent15: if the moss is material the horsepond is a Boxer. sent16: the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal.

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not diastolic it is not a landmark or it is a kind of a crystallography or both does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a zoster it noses glycogen and/or it is satiate. sent2: if the glycogen is diastolic then it either is not a landmark or is a crystallography or both. sent3: if the glycogen is not diastolic it is not a landmark and/or it is a crystallography.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x))

sent1: (Ex): ¬{HH}x -> ({IS}x v {D}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not diastolic it is not a landmark or it is a kind of a crystallography or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a zoster it noses glycogen and/or it is satiate. sent2: if the glycogen is diastolic then it either is not a landmark or is a crystallography or both. sent3: if the glycogen is not diastolic it is not a landmark and/or it is a crystallography. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the glycogen is not diastolic it is not a landmark and/or it is a crystallography.

the ebb rushes Yugoslav but it is not a kind of a Mindoro.

sent1: the ebb is a slicker and does not recreate. sent2: the ebb is not open-source. sent3: the ebb does rush Yugoslav but it is not a Mindoro if the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro. sent4: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro hold is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is non-disciplinary thing that is not open-source is not true. sent7: if the ebb is physiological then the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro does not hold. sent8: something is a kind of a Mindoro and is not disciplinary if it is physiological. sent9: the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro if there is something such that that it is disciplinary hold. sent10: the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong.

({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

sent1: ({EA}{b} & ¬{HS}{b}) sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent4: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent8: (x): {B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{AA}x) sent9: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{EC}x & ¬{DM}x) -> ¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Yugoslav is not disciplinary.

¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ebb rushes Yugoslav but it is not a kind of a Mindoro. ; $context$ = sent1: the ebb is a slicker and does not recreate. sent2: the ebb is not open-source. sent3: the ebb does rush Yugoslav but it is not a Mindoro if the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro. sent4: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro hold is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is non-disciplinary thing that is not open-source is not true. sent7: if the ebb is physiological then the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro does not hold. sent8: something is a kind of a Mindoro and is not disciplinary if it is physiological. sent9: the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro if there is something such that that it is disciplinary hold. sent10: the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong.

the sweatsuit is not a vernation but it is an acropolis.

sent1: that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen. sent2: the sweatsuit is not a kind of a vernation but it does canvass candlesnuffer. sent3: the fact that if the resident is an acropolis the sweatsuit is not a sublimate is correct. sent4: if the resident does not canvass candlesnuffer then the HDL does not sublimate but it is a kind of an acropolis. sent5: if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis.

(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})

sent1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (¬{E}{c} & {C}{c}) sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sweatsuit is not a vernation but it is an acropolis. ; $context$ = sent1: that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen. sent2: the sweatsuit is not a kind of a vernation but it does canvass candlesnuffer. sent3: the fact that if the resident is an acropolis the sweatsuit is not a sublimate is correct. sent4: if the resident does not canvass candlesnuffer then the HDL does not sublimate but it is a kind of an acropolis. sent5: if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen.

the tomtate is not a Ruskin.

sent1: the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist. sent2: that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist. sent3: something is not a Ufa and canvasses Xenopus. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a Ruskin and rushes clubfooted. sent5: something is not a Ruskin but a pharmacist. sent6: the tomtate is a kind of a pharmacist if something that is not a Ruskin rushes clubfooted. sent7: there is something such that it is not a Ruskin.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AL}x & {JD}x) sent4: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) sent5: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the tomtate is not a Ruskin. ; $context$ = sent1: the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist. sent2: that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist. sent3: something is not a Ufa and canvasses Xenopus. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a Ruskin and rushes clubfooted. sent5: something is not a Ruskin but a pharmacist. sent6: the tomtate is a kind of a pharmacist if something that is not a Ruskin rushes clubfooted. sent7: there is something such that it is not a Ruskin. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist.

the permit is non-mystic.

sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent.

¬{B}{c}

sent1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent5: ({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent8: (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent9: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{gd} & {DP}{gd})

PROVED

PROVED

the permit is a mystic.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the permit is non-mystic. ; $context$ = sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic but it is aversive is not incorrect.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric.

the sun happens and the no-trump happens.

sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: ({CT} & ¬{K}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> {HP} sent3: {JH} sent4: ¬{IH} -> {S} sent5: ¬{C} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: {F} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> {AA} sent9: {HH} sent10: ¬{E} -> {D} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬{EF} -> ¬({BG} & ¬{EP}) sent13: ¬{BL} -> ({GG} & {AH}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{U} sent16: {AH} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬{C} sent19: {FT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the sun happens and the no-trump happens is not right.

¬({A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sun happens and the no-trump happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.

that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Tuscan or it is bursal or both is wrong it does canvass garbology is not correct.

sent1: the cul is synthetic if that it either is extraterrestrial or is iambic or both is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a cleared and/or does sensitize LPN does not hold then it does curl. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not alert and/or does canvass free is not right it is transpolar. sent4: if the fact that the cul is not a kind of a Tuscan and/or it is bursal is not right then the fact that it does canvass garbology hold.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: ¬({IJ}{aa} v {CA}{aa}) -> {IF}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{JA}x v {CI}x) -> {HC}x sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x v {JJ}x) -> {CC}x sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a Tuscan or it is bursal or both is wrong it does canvass garbology is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the cul is synthetic if that it either is extraterrestrial or is iambic or both is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a cleared and/or does sensitize LPN does not hold then it does curl. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not alert and/or does canvass free is not right it is transpolar. sent4: if the fact that the cul is not a kind of a Tuscan and/or it is bursal is not right then the fact that it does canvass garbology hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the cul is not a kind of a Tuscan and/or it is bursal is not right then the fact that it does canvass garbology hold.

the dhole is a strum if the marjoram is a kind of a Scincidae.

sent1: the dhole does not strum if it crazes. sent2: the marjoram is a strum if the dhole is a Scincidae. sent3: if the marjoram is a kind of a strum but it is not a Cheiranthus the dhole is a craze. sent4: if the dhole is a kind of a craze the marjoram strums. sent5: the set-back does not rush Passer if that it does rush Passer and does not canvass spectrometer is not true. sent6: the laptop is a Conepatus that is not a suffragette if it is a strum. sent7: the dhole is a Cheiranthus. sent8: if the marjoram strums it is slippery. sent9: the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus. sent10: the marjoram is not a Cheiranthus. sent11: the miller is a kind of a Scincidae. sent12: if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus.

{A}{a} -> {B}{b}

sent1: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: ({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent4: {AA}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬({C}{fs} & ¬{E}{fs}) -> ¬{C}{fs} sent6: {B}{bq} -> ({FD}{bq} & ¬{FT}{bq}) sent7: {AB}{b} sent8: {B}{a} -> {CH}{a} sent9: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬{AB}{a} sent11: {A}{hd} sent12: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the set-back does strum.

{B}{fs}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dhole is a strum if the marjoram is a kind of a Scincidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the dhole does not strum if it crazes. sent2: the marjoram is a strum if the dhole is a Scincidae. sent3: if the marjoram is a kind of a strum but it is not a Cheiranthus the dhole is a craze. sent4: if the dhole is a kind of a craze the marjoram strums. sent5: the set-back does not rush Passer if that it does rush Passer and does not canvass spectrometer is not true. sent6: the laptop is a Conepatus that is not a suffragette if it is a strum. sent7: the dhole is a Cheiranthus. sent8: if the marjoram strums it is slippery. sent9: the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus. sent10: the marjoram is not a Cheiranthus. sent11: the miller is a kind of a Scincidae. sent12: if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marjoram is a Scincidae.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the marjoram does craze but it is not a Cheiranthus.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the dhole is a kind of a strum.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus.

the dimmedness occurs.

sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold.

{D}

sent1: (¬{O} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{M} sent2: ({HG} & {BC}) sent3: ¬{L} sent4: {A} -> {IQ} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ¬{M} -> ¬({J} & {K}) sent7: ({C} & {E}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {G}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {A}) sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {A} sent12: ({IB} & {GL}) sent13: ({AK} & {JG}) sent14: {E} sent15: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ¬{L} -> ({F} & {I}) sent17: ¬({J} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent18: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{E}) sent19: ¬(¬{D} & {A}) -> {D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dimmedness occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dimmedness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the theater occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the celibacy happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the theater and the celibacy happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the esophagealness and the theater happens.

there is something such that if it is a trail then the fact that that it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian is not wrong is not right.

sent1: if the ketorolac is a trail it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a bareness that it is both not a Dickinson and not anal is not correct. sent3: the fact that the ketorolac does not croon and it is not injectable is wrong if that it is anti-semitic is true. sent4: if something does canvass edged the fact that it does not canvass piezometer and it is not a Gasterosteidae is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it is brotherly the fact that it does not rush fighter and it is not a kind of a electroplater does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it canvasses SACEUR the fact that it does not canvass aggressor and it is not a Dickinson does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a trail then it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian. sent8: the fact that the ketorolac is not ecclesiastical and it is not Ecuadorian is not correct if it noses Pluteus. sent9: the fact that the whippersnapper does not nose godfather and it does not rush repentance is false if it does impress. sent10: the fact that there is something such that if it does trail that it does not nose godfather and it is a Ecuadorian does not hold is correct. sent11: if the ketorolac is a trail the fact that it does not nose godfather and is a kind of a Ecuadorian is not correct. sent12: if the ketorolac is a kind of a trail the fact that it noses godfather and is not a kind of a Ecuadorian does not hold. sent13: the fact that the ketorolac does not nose godfather and is not a Ecuadorian is not true if it trails. sent14: if the Francisella is a trail the fact that it does not rush hostilities and does not canvass Heyward does not hold. sent15: there is something such that if it is a trail then that it noses godfather and it is not Ecuadorian does not hold. sent16: there exists something such that if it is intervertebral the fact that it is not an adoptee and not a disgusting does not hold. sent17: if the silks is a press the fact that the fact that it is not Rabelaisian and it does not rush hostilities is correct is incorrect.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {IA}x -> ¬(¬{GK}x & ¬{S}x) sent3: {EU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IO}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent4: (x): {AS}x -> ¬(¬{ET}x & ¬{JK}x) sent5: (Ex): {HP}x -> ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{CD}x) sent6: (Ex): {GU}x -> ¬(¬{EP}x & ¬{GK}x) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {J}{aa} -> ¬(¬{HJ}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: {BJ}{ci} -> ¬(¬{AA}{ci} & ¬{CK}{ci}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent14: {A}{cd} -> ¬(¬{FJ}{cd} & ¬{H}{cd}) sent15: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (Ex): {BA}x -> ¬(¬{AJ}x & ¬{IT}x) sent17: {AH}{je} -> ¬(¬{DM}{je} & ¬{FJ}{je})

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that if it canvasses edged the fact that it does not canvass piezometer and is not a kind of a Gasterosteidae is wrong.

(Ex): {AS}x -> ¬(¬{ET}x & ¬{JK}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a trail then the fact that that it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian is not wrong is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ketorolac is a trail it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a bareness that it is both not a Dickinson and not anal is not correct. sent3: the fact that the ketorolac does not croon and it is not injectable is wrong if that it is anti-semitic is true. sent4: if something does canvass edged the fact that it does not canvass piezometer and it is not a Gasterosteidae is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it is brotherly the fact that it does not rush fighter and it is not a kind of a electroplater does not hold. sent6: there is something such that if it canvasses SACEUR the fact that it does not canvass aggressor and it is not a Dickinson does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a trail then it does not nose godfather and it is not a Ecuadorian. sent8: the fact that the ketorolac is not ecclesiastical and it is not Ecuadorian is not correct if it noses Pluteus. sent9: the fact that the whippersnapper does not nose godfather and it does not rush repentance is false if it does impress. sent10: the fact that there is something such that if it does trail that it does not nose godfather and it is a Ecuadorian does not hold is correct. sent11: if the ketorolac is a trail the fact that it does not nose godfather and is a kind of a Ecuadorian is not correct. sent12: if the ketorolac is a kind of a trail the fact that it noses godfather and is not a kind of a Ecuadorian does not hold. sent13: the fact that the ketorolac does not nose godfather and is not a Ecuadorian is not true if it trails. sent14: if the Francisella is a trail the fact that it does not rush hostilities and does not canvass Heyward does not hold. sent15: there is something such that if it is a trail then that it noses godfather and it is not Ecuadorian does not hold. sent16: there exists something such that if it is intervertebral the fact that it is not an adoptee and not a disgusting does not hold. sent17: if the silks is a press the fact that the fact that it is not Rabelaisian and it does not rush hostilities is correct is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the ketorolac does not nose godfather and is not a Ecuadorian is not true if it trails.

the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic.

sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable.

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

sent1: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} sent2: (Ex): {E}x sent3: ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{L}{f} -> ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent8: ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) sent13: ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent14: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent15: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{O}{h} -> ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) sent17: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) sent18: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) sent20: ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent22: (x): {E}x -> {D}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the dextrose is cannibalistic and it is a kind of a externalization.

({HD}{b} & {AH}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic.

there exists something such that if that it canvasses Tenoretic hold that it is not a Dix and it is not a kind of a click is not correct.

sent1: there is something such that if it canvasses Tenoretic then the fact that it is both not a Dix and a click is not correct. sent2: that that something does not rush Arcturus and is not a little is wrong if it canvasses Tenoretic is right. sent3: the indapamide is not a kind of a servant and it is not inalienable if it is a Dix. sent4: there is something such that if it does canvass Tenoretic then that it is not a Dix and it is not a click is not false. sent5: if the digitigrade canvasses Tenoretic that it is not a kind of a Dix and is not a kind of a click is not correct. sent6: if the digitigrade does canvass Tenoretic then that it is not a Dix and does click is not correct. sent7: if the digitigrade is unchaste that it is both not a Weimaraner and not a Dix is false. sent8: there exists something such that if it canvasses Tenoretic then that it is a Dix and not a click is incorrect. sent9: the dessert is not a Vinogradoff and it does not canvass Tenoretic if it rushes moralism.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: {AA}{g} -> (¬{GN}{g} & ¬{CI}{g}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {HF}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DS}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: {CH}{db} -> (¬{DB}{db} & ¬{A}{db})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the fluorapatite does not rush Arcturus and is not a little does not hold if that it canvasses Tenoretic is right.

{A}{aj} -> ¬(¬{K}{aj} & ¬{G}{aj})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it canvasses Tenoretic hold that it is not a Dix and it is not a kind of a click is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it canvasses Tenoretic then the fact that it is both not a Dix and a click is not correct. sent2: that that something does not rush Arcturus and is not a little is wrong if it canvasses Tenoretic is right. sent3: the indapamide is not a kind of a servant and it is not inalienable if it is a Dix. sent4: there is something such that if it does canvass Tenoretic then that it is not a Dix and it is not a click is not false. sent5: if the digitigrade canvasses Tenoretic that it is not a kind of a Dix and is not a kind of a click is not correct. sent6: if the digitigrade does canvass Tenoretic then that it is not a Dix and does click is not correct. sent7: if the digitigrade is unchaste that it is both not a Weimaraner and not a Dix is false. sent8: there exists something such that if it canvasses Tenoretic then that it is a Dix and not a click is incorrect. sent9: the dessert is not a Vinogradoff and it does not canvass Tenoretic if it rushes moralism. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the digitigrade canvasses Tenoretic that it is not a kind of a Dix and is not a kind of a click is not correct.

the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.

sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram.

the bodega is a Cheiranthus.

sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gherkin is introversive.

{C}{dg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bodega is a Cheiranthus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bodega is a Cheiranthus.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bodega is a kind of a etagere.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the bodega is not a kind of a etagere.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere.

that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ({C} & {E}) sent3: {E} sent4: ¬{DN} sent5: {IJ} -> {JA} sent6: {R} sent7: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AK} sent9: {A} sent10: ({CT} & {HH}) sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: ¬{AG} sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A})

PROVED

PROVED

the discordantness occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs.

there is something such that that it is an accumulation and it is a foothold is incorrect.

sent1: there is nothing that does reseed and is pyknotic. sent2: that the fact that the juice is politics and a caudate is incorrect is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the adobo canvasses silo and it is an accumulation does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a biweekly. sent4: if the wagtail blinds the leotard noses tailpipe. sent5: the wagtail does canvass tearaway and it is a blinded. sent6: if the harrier is exaugural then the fact that the rotisserie is exaugural is true. sent7: the crampfish is a doubletree if the rotisserie is exaugural. sent8: if something is afraid it is exaugural. sent9: the harrier is afraid and it is a postgraduate if something noses tailpipe. sent10: there exists nothing that is an accumulation and is a foothold. sent11: if something does not ambulate then it is a numbers and is not a biweekly. sent12: the claystone does not ambulate if that the crampfish is a biquadratic is right. sent13: there exists nothing that is both inevitable and a moke. sent14: if something is a doubletree it is a biquadratic.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬({CT}x & {DL}x) sent2: ¬({DM}{aa} & {P}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({CL}{ji} & {AA}{ji}) sent4: {J}{f} -> {I}{e} sent5: ({K}{f} & {J}{f}) sent6: {F}{d} -> {F}{c} sent7: {F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent8: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent9: (x): {I}x -> ({G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({GC}x & {BP}x) sent14: (x): {E}x -> {D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the adobo canvasses silo and it is an accumulation is false.

¬({CL}{ji} & {AA}{ji})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that that it is an accumulation and it is a foothold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing that does reseed and is pyknotic. sent2: that the fact that the juice is politics and a caudate is incorrect is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the adobo canvasses silo and it is an accumulation does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a biweekly. sent4: if the wagtail blinds the leotard noses tailpipe. sent5: the wagtail does canvass tearaway and it is a blinded. sent6: if the harrier is exaugural then the fact that the rotisserie is exaugural is true. sent7: the crampfish is a doubletree if the rotisserie is exaugural. sent8: if something is afraid it is exaugural. sent9: the harrier is afraid and it is a postgraduate if something noses tailpipe. sent10: there exists nothing that is an accumulation and is a foothold. sent11: if something does not ambulate then it is a numbers and is not a biweekly. sent12: the claystone does not ambulate if that the crampfish is a biquadratic is right. sent13: there exists nothing that is both inevitable and a moke. sent14: if something is a doubletree it is a biquadratic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the fact that the juice is a kind of an accumulation and is a foothold is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing that is an accumulation and is a foothold.

that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold.

sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand.

the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a Chalcis.

sent1: that the abnegator is a Chalcis and is not a telecommunication is not right if the ensemble is a Chalcis. sent2: if something is both not a babyminder and not a cookfire then it is a millenary. sent3: the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and a Chalcis is wrong. sent4: the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise. sent5: a millenary is not a coiled and is a needle. sent6: the opepe is a telecommunication. sent7: the fact that the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication and it is a kind of a Chalcis is not right if the abnegator is a kind of a telecommunication. sent8: if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true. sent9: the abnegator is a Chalcis and it is a tortoise. sent10: the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis if the abnegator is not a tortoise. sent11: the abnegator is a tortoise. sent12: that the contrabassoon is a kind of a Chalcis and it noses hundredweight hold.

({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

sent1: {C}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent3: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent6: {A}{g} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ({C}{ho} & {ET}{ho})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis.

({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a Chalcis. ; $context$ = sent1: that the abnegator is a Chalcis and is not a telecommunication is not right if the ensemble is a Chalcis. sent2: if something is both not a babyminder and not a cookfire then it is a millenary. sent3: the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and a Chalcis is wrong. sent4: the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise. sent5: a millenary is not a coiled and is a needle. sent6: the opepe is a telecommunication. sent7: the fact that the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication and it is a kind of a Chalcis is not right if the abnegator is a kind of a telecommunication. sent8: if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true. sent9: the abnegator is a Chalcis and it is a tortoise. sent10: the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis if the abnegator is not a tortoise. sent11: the abnegator is a tortoise. sent12: that the contrabassoon is a kind of a Chalcis and it noses hundredweight hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the abnegator is a telecommunication.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise.

the habitat is non-zygomatic.

sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the habitat is non-zygomatic. ; $context$ = sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.

that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true.

sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent2: {CA} sent3: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: {C} sent6: ({J} v {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {A} sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the heavy-dutiness happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs.

if the wave is not arbitrary then it is antecedent and/or it is not a teardrop.

sent1: if something is not arbitrary either it is antecedent or it is not a teardrop or both. sent2: if something is not a teardrop it is a homosexuality or it is not a photometer or both. sent3: something is an aunt and/or is not a kind of a scapula if it is not a fiber.

¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ({HN}x v ¬{IT}x) sent3: (x): ¬{HT}x -> ({CJ}x v ¬{IP}x)

PROVED

PROVED

if the fact that the cheeseburger is not a teardrop is correct then it is a kind of a homosexuality and/or is not a kind of a photometer.

¬{AB}{gm} -> ({HN}{gm} v ¬{IT}{gm})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = if the wave is not arbitrary then it is antecedent and/or it is not a teardrop. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not arbitrary either it is antecedent or it is not a teardrop or both. sent2: if something is not a teardrop it is a homosexuality or it is not a photometer or both. sent3: something is an aunt and/or is not a kind of a scapula if it is not a fiber. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not arbitrary either it is antecedent or it is not a teardrop or both.

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a strength and it is not a Oceanus it is unbroken.

sent1: if the synergy is not an ointment and it is not unbroken then it is a graffito. sent2: that the synergy is a kind of the kickstand if the synergy is not a kind of a Oceanus and it is not a aloes is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a Shastan but not excretory then the fact that it canvasses intern is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it embattles and it is not a snot then it does rush nameplate. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not canvass intern and it rushes amphitheater is true then it is Aleutian. sent6: that if something is not a Sesotho but a lipstick the fact that it is menstrual hold is not incorrect. sent7: if something is a Hidatsa and is not a redwood it is generative. sent8: the synergy is a strength if it is a kind of non-entozoan thing that does rush potbelly. sent9: there is something such that if it does not sensitize MIDI and it does canvass disfigurement it is a beanie. sent10: something that is not a strength and not a Oceanus is not unbroken. sent11: the intern is an ointment if it yawps and it is not a redwood. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not sympathize and is not an incapacity is true then it is a rule. sent13: there is something such that if it does canvass fixative and does not sensitize clutch then it is paintable. sent14: there is something such that if it is not entomophilous and is a kind of a loch it is a kind of an incapacity. sent15: if something does not resuscitate and does not rough it is alkylic.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: (¬{IL}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> {IN}{aa} sent2: (¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{EF}{aa}) -> {GP}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({JJ}x & ¬{FI}x) -> {FO}x sent4: (Ex): ({BL}x & ¬{FU}x) -> {AR}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{FO}x & {O}x) -> {AU}x sent6: (x): (¬{BA}x & {FL}x) -> {IT}x sent7: (x): ({EN}x & ¬{FS}x) -> {HI}x sent8: (¬{HC}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent9: (Ex): (¬{ED}x & {CK}x) -> {HO}x sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: ({AJ}{fs} & ¬{FS}{fs}) -> {IL}{fs} sent12: (Ex): (¬{HG}x & ¬{CO}x) -> {CI}x sent13: (Ex): ({AP}x & ¬{CN}x) -> {Q}x sent14: (Ex): (¬{HQ}x & {AD}x) -> {CO}x sent15: (x): (¬{BH}x & ¬{FB}x) -> {EP}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a strength and it is not a Oceanus it is unbroken. ; $context$ = sent1: if the synergy is not an ointment and it is not unbroken then it is a graffito. sent2: that the synergy is a kind of the kickstand if the synergy is not a kind of a Oceanus and it is not a aloes is not false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a Shastan but not excretory then the fact that it canvasses intern is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it embattles and it is not a snot then it does rush nameplate. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not canvass intern and it rushes amphitheater is true then it is Aleutian. sent6: that if something is not a Sesotho but a lipstick the fact that it is menstrual hold is not incorrect. sent7: if something is a Hidatsa and is not a redwood it is generative. sent8: the synergy is a strength if it is a kind of non-entozoan thing that does rush potbelly. sent9: there is something such that if it does not sensitize MIDI and it does canvass disfigurement it is a beanie. sent10: something that is not a strength and not a Oceanus is not unbroken. sent11: the intern is an ointment if it yawps and it is not a redwood. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not sympathize and is not an incapacity is true then it is a rule. sent13: there is something such that if it does canvass fixative and does not sensitize clutch then it is paintable. sent14: there is something such that if it is not entomophilous and is a kind of a loch it is a kind of an incapacity. sent15: if something does not resuscitate and does not rough it is alkylic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the synergy is unbroken if that it is not a kind of a strength and is not a Oceanus is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that is not a strength and not a Oceanus is not unbroken.

the panicle does not rush inkwell but it is loud.

sent1: the fact that something does not rush inkwell but it is loud does not hold if it is not alkalotic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud. sent3: the fact that the panicle is epithelial is right if the explosive is not non-prokaryotic but non-proprioceptive. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a requital and loud is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not biosynthetic and it is not a kind of a worldliness is not right it is biosynthetic. sent6: the explosive is prokaryotic but it is not proprioceptive if the inkwell is biosynthetic. sent7: there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital. sent8: something is non-alkalotic if it is epithelial and/or it is not lacustrine. sent9: The inkwell does not rush panicle. sent10: the dehydroretinol is an eagerness.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the panicle does not rush inkwell and is loud does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the panicle does not rush inkwell but it is loud. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not rush inkwell but it is loud does not hold if it is not alkalotic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud. sent3: the fact that the panicle is epithelial is right if the explosive is not non-prokaryotic but non-proprioceptive. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a requital and loud is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not biosynthetic and it is not a kind of a worldliness is not right it is biosynthetic. sent6: the explosive is prokaryotic but it is not proprioceptive if the inkwell is biosynthetic. sent7: there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital. sent8: something is non-alkalotic if it is epithelial and/or it is not lacustrine. sent9: The inkwell does not rush panicle. sent10: the dehydroretinol is an eagerness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital.

the shaver is not unrighteous.

sent1: the archeologist is not non-best if the gyrostabilizer seethes. sent2: the fact that something is a theophylline but it is not unrighteous is not right if it does not seethe. sent3: the shaver is not unrighteous if the archeologist is a best and/or does rush Lidocaine. sent4: the gyrostabilizer seethes or is a kind of a spray or both if there exists something such that it is not a theophylline. sent5: if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best. sent6: if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous. sent7: there is something such that that it is a kind of a theophylline is not incorrect.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the shaver is unrighteous.

{F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shaver is not unrighteous. ; $context$ = sent1: the archeologist is not non-best if the gyrostabilizer seethes. sent2: the fact that something is a theophylline but it is not unrighteous is not right if it does not seethe. sent3: the shaver is not unrighteous if the archeologist is a best and/or does rush Lidocaine. sent4: the gyrostabilizer seethes or is a kind of a spray or both if there exists something such that it is not a theophylline. sent5: if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best. sent6: if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous. sent7: there is something such that that it is a kind of a theophylline is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best.

there exists something such that if it does not nose grab then that it is not a chattel and it is not a certificated is false.

sent1: something that does not nose grab is not a kind of a chattel and is not a kind of a certificated. sent2: the fact that something is not a chattel and not a certificated does not hold if it does not nose grab. sent3: the spot-welder is not a biodefense and it is not a kind of a chattel if it is not a raster. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not canvass quartzite it is not a kind of a quadratic and does not sensitize stigmatism. sent5: that something does not nose topaz and is not a chattel does not hold if it is not a kind of a Friesian.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{IU}{dj} -> (¬{AN}{dj} & ¬{AA}{dj}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{BG}x -> (¬{ID}x & ¬{CO}x) sent5: (x): ¬{DG}x -> ¬(¬{DF}x & ¬{AA}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the quartzite does not nose topaz and is not a chattel does not hold if it is not a Friesian.

¬{DG}{bo} -> ¬(¬{DF}{bo} & ¬{AA}{bo})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not nose grab then that it is not a chattel and it is not a certificated is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not nose grab is not a kind of a chattel and is not a kind of a certificated. sent2: the fact that something is not a chattel and not a certificated does not hold if it does not nose grab. sent3: the spot-welder is not a biodefense and it is not a kind of a chattel if it is not a raster. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not canvass quartzite it is not a kind of a quadratic and does not sensitize stigmatism. sent5: that something does not nose topaz and is not a chattel does not hold if it is not a kind of a Friesian. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if the grab does not nose grab then that it is not a chattel and it does not certificate is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not a chattel and not a certificated does not hold if it does not nose grab.

that if that the lodging is neuroglial but it does not nose Lennon is not right the lodging is a stammer does not hold.

sent1: if the lodging noses Lennon it is a kind of a stammer. sent2: if that something does rush mount but it does not canvass drupelet is wrong then it excels. sent3: if something does nose Lennon then it is a stammer. sent4: the lodging is neuroglial if the fact that it is a flagellum and is foolish does not hold. sent5: if that something is hemic and it is a tied is not true it is a khanate. sent6: if that something is surficial thing that does canvass eschatologist is not right the fact that it does single is not wrong. sent7: if the flywheel is not a stammer then it is photoconductive. sent8: if that that something is a Dinka and is a tread is not incorrect is wrong the fact that it does not howl is not right. sent9: if something is non-photoconductive it does mock. sent10: the love-token does nose Lennon if it is not a Eris. sent11: if the fact that something is neuroglial but it does not nose Lennon does not hold it is a stammer.

¬(¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa})

sent1: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({BA}x & ¬{IK}x) -> {GF}x sent3: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent4: ¬({GK}{aa} & {L}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬({H}x & {CI}x) -> {AD}x sent6: (x): ¬({JH}x & {HE}x) -> {AN}x sent7: ¬{B}{ae} -> {HP}{ae} sent8: (x): ¬({GD}x & {CE}x) -> {DE}x sent9: (x): ¬{HP}x -> {HI}x sent10: ¬{FB}{fo} -> {AB}{fo} sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if that the lodging is neuroglial but it does not nose Lennon is not right the lodging is a stammer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lodging noses Lennon it is a kind of a stammer. sent2: if that something does rush mount but it does not canvass drupelet is wrong then it excels. sent3: if something does nose Lennon then it is a stammer. sent4: the lodging is neuroglial if the fact that it is a flagellum and is foolish does not hold. sent5: if that something is hemic and it is a tied is not true it is a khanate. sent6: if that something is surficial thing that does canvass eschatologist is not right the fact that it does single is not wrong. sent7: if the flywheel is not a stammer then it is photoconductive. sent8: if that that something is a Dinka and is a tread is not incorrect is wrong the fact that it does not howl is not right. sent9: if something is non-photoconductive it does mock. sent10: the love-token does nose Lennon if it is not a Eris. sent11: if the fact that something is neuroglial but it does not nose Lennon does not hold it is a stammer. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is neuroglial but it does not nose Lennon does not hold it is a stammer.

the jar does not sensitize Pleurosorus.

sent1: the llano either does not nose coverlet or is not a handset or both if it is not a centennial. sent2: the llano noses coverlet. sent3: something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation. sent4: the caseworm is a kind of a handset. sent5: the jar is not a handset if the llano is a kind of a handset. sent6: the fact that the jar is a kind of a moderation that is not extraordinary is incorrect if the llano pales. sent7: the jar is not a kind of a handset. sent8: the jar does not canvass pannikin. sent9: the DAT sensitizes Pleurosorus. sent10: if something does not nose coverlet then it sensitizes Pleurosorus and it is a kind of a handset. sent11: if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false. sent12: if that the llano is not a Jew's-ear is correct then it pales and it does nose hundredweight. sent13: if the fact that something is a moderation but it is not extraordinary is not right then it is not a moderation. sent14: if the llano is a handset the jar is not a handset and does not sensitize Pleurosorus.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: {A}{ie} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: {G}{a} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent7: ¬{A}{b} sent8: ¬{BU}{b} sent9: {D}{ca} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent11: (x): ({E}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: ¬{J}{a} -> ({G}{a} & {I}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent14: {A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the jar does sensitize Pleurosorus.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the jar does not sensitize Pleurosorus. ; $context$ = sent1: the llano either does not nose coverlet or is not a handset or both if it is not a centennial. sent2: the llano noses coverlet. sent3: something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation. sent4: the caseworm is a kind of a handset. sent5: the jar is not a handset if the llano is a kind of a handset. sent6: the fact that the jar is a kind of a moderation that is not extraordinary is incorrect if the llano pales. sent7: the jar is not a kind of a handset. sent8: the jar does not canvass pannikin. sent9: the DAT sensitizes Pleurosorus. sent10: if something does not nose coverlet then it sensitizes Pleurosorus and it is a kind of a handset. sent11: if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false. sent12: if that the llano is not a Jew's-ear is correct then it pales and it does nose hundredweight. sent13: if the fact that something is a moderation but it is not extraordinary is not right then it is not a moderation. sent14: if the llano is a handset the jar is not a handset and does not sensitize Pleurosorus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation.

the SC is a kind of a mint.

sent1: if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint. sent2: if something is thermometric and it is a scroll that it does not nose outside is true. sent3: the recapitulation is not a Nycticorax. sent4: the root is not a Nycticorax. sent5: that the sol is both not non-Levantine and not non-turbinate is incorrect. sent6: if that the SC does not mint but it is a doubloon is false it is not lunar. sent7: the fact that something does not nose trident but it is a kind of a mint does not hold if it does not nose outside. sent8: the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right. sent9: something does not nose backgammon if it is a polo. sent10: the fact that the outside is not bipedal but it is biaxial is not correct. sent11: the fact that the SC is a honeybee and it is a kind of a Longfellow is false. sent12: the debutante is not a kind of a stipule if that it is not apneic but a expensiveness is not correct. sent13: something is not atrophic if the fact that it does not rush oculism and it is a nitrofurantoin is wrong. sent14: that the SC is non-abyssal thing that is a perjury is false. sent15: if that the SC is not Stravinskyan but it is a mint is not true it is not a depilatory. sent16: something does not inspect if it is not non-abyssal. sent17: the SC is not a DISA.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬{AA}{ce} sent4: ¬{AA}{el} sent5: ¬({DG}{gc} & {GQ}{gc}) sent6: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {F}{aa}) -> ¬{CI}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {EK}x -> ¬{JA}x sent10: ¬(¬{M}{bp} & {IA}{bp}) sent11: ¬({ET}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent12: ¬(¬{JE}{bu} & {AB}{bu}) -> ¬{FL}{bu} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{IH}x & {BU}x) -> ¬{DE}x sent14: ¬(¬{AQ}{aa} & {J}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{DH}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{GS}{aa} sent16: (x): {AQ}x -> ¬{BT}x sent17: ¬{FO}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trident is not a kind of a Nycticorax is right.

¬{AA}{gj}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the SC is a kind of a mint. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint. sent2: if something is thermometric and it is a scroll that it does not nose outside is true. sent3: the recapitulation is not a Nycticorax. sent4: the root is not a Nycticorax. sent5: that the sol is both not non-Levantine and not non-turbinate is incorrect. sent6: if that the SC does not mint but it is a doubloon is false it is not lunar. sent7: the fact that something does not nose trident but it is a kind of a mint does not hold if it does not nose outside. sent8: the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right. sent9: something does not nose backgammon if it is a polo. sent10: the fact that the outside is not bipedal but it is biaxial is not correct. sent11: the fact that the SC is a honeybee and it is a kind of a Longfellow is false. sent12: the debutante is not a kind of a stipule if that it is not apneic but a expensiveness is not correct. sent13: something is not atrophic if the fact that it does not rush oculism and it is a nitrofurantoin is wrong. sent14: that the SC is non-abyssal thing that is a perjury is false. sent15: if that the SC is not Stravinskyan but it is a mint is not true it is not a depilatory. sent16: something does not inspect if it is not non-abyssal. sent17: the SC is not a DISA. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the SC is not a mint if that it is not a Nycticorax and it is a expensiveness does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint.

the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a kind of a ixodid.

sent1: the fact that something does canvass pe and is not a ixodid is incorrect if it is nontoxic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true. sent3: the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap. sent4: the unit is not sanitary if there is something such that it is not nontoxic. sent5: if the unit is unsanitary the ridge canvasses pe and is not a ixodid.

({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a ixodid is wrong.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a kind of a ixodid. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does canvass pe and is not a ixodid is incorrect if it is nontoxic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true. sent3: the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap. sent4: the unit is not sanitary if there is something such that it is not nontoxic. sent5: if the unit is unsanitary the ridge canvasses pe and is not a ixodid. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true.

the parasympathetic is bracteal and it is abient.

sent1: if a cryptogamic thing does not forage it is not abient. sent2: the sudatorium is not wet. sent3: if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient. sent4: there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong. sent5: if the parasympathetic is not precocial and it is not Moravian the giblet is not Moravian. sent6: the sudatorium is not a kind of a arsenical if it is non-wet. sent7: the sod is cryptogamic but it does not forage if the giblet is an antifreeze. sent8: the parasympathetic is a pet. sent9: the rusher does sensitize wainscot. sent10: if the parasympathetic is a kind of an antifreeze it is bracteal. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the giblet is not an antifreeze but it forages is not false is not right then the parasympathetic is not cryptogamic. sent12: the giblet forages. sent13: the parasympathetic is an antifreeze if the fact that the giblet is not cryptogamic but it does forage hold. sent14: if a non-bracteal thing does nose rhinophyma then it is a kind of an antifreeze. sent15: the fact that something is bracteal and is abient does not hold if it is not cryptogamic. sent16: if there is something such that it does not nose rhinophyma then the parasympathetic is abient.

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

sent1: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent2: ¬{J}{c} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> {E}{b} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) sent5: (¬{I}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent6: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬{H}{c} sent7: {C}{a} -> ({A}{il} & ¬{B}{il}) sent8: {BF}{b} sent9: {GS}{hq} sent10: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent11: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent12: {B}{a} sent13: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent16: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sod is not abient.

¬{E}{il}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the parasympathetic is bracteal and it is abient. ; $context$ = sent1: if a cryptogamic thing does not forage it is not abient. sent2: the sudatorium is not wet. sent3: if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient. sent4: there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong. sent5: if the parasympathetic is not precocial and it is not Moravian the giblet is not Moravian. sent6: the sudatorium is not a kind of a arsenical if it is non-wet. sent7: the sod is cryptogamic but it does not forage if the giblet is an antifreeze. sent8: the parasympathetic is a pet. sent9: the rusher does sensitize wainscot. sent10: if the parasympathetic is a kind of an antifreeze it is bracteal. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the giblet is not an antifreeze but it forages is not false is not right then the parasympathetic is not cryptogamic. sent12: the giblet forages. sent13: the parasympathetic is an antifreeze if the fact that the giblet is not cryptogamic but it does forage hold. sent14: if a non-bracteal thing does nose rhinophyma then it is a kind of an antifreeze. sent15: the fact that something is bracteal and is abient does not hold if it is not cryptogamic. sent16: if there is something such that it does not nose rhinophyma then the parasympathetic is abient. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong.

the tailstock is a shorts.

sent1: the fact that something is not shorts but it is quantal is wrong if it is not a lecithin. sent2: the fact that the tailstock is carcinogenic and is bimetallistic is not right. sent3: the tailstock is non-bimetallistic if there is something such that that that it is shorts and it is not carcinogenic is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the fact that the Bushman is both not non-shorts and not a minicomputer is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that that it is a kind of a shorts and it is not quantal is incorrect. sent6: the minnow rushes trad and is not bimetallistic. sent7: if there is something such that that it does not rush cheeseburger and it is not a Jordanian does not hold the Bushman is not a lecithin. sent8: the Bushman is not quantal if there is something such that the fact that it is carcinogenic and it is non-bimetallistic is not true. sent9: the tailstock is a kind of a shorts if it is a kind of carcinogenic thing that is non-bimetallistic. sent10: if something is bimetallistic then the Bushman is not quantal. sent11: if something is not a soak then that it does not rush cheeseburger and is not Jordanian is wrong.

{B}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the podocarp is not a Soave hold.

¬{IK}{s}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tailstock is a shorts. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not shorts but it is quantal is wrong if it is not a lecithin. sent2: the fact that the tailstock is carcinogenic and is bimetallistic is not right. sent3: the tailstock is non-bimetallistic if there is something such that that that it is shorts and it is not carcinogenic is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: the fact that the Bushman is both not non-shorts and not a minicomputer is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that that it is a kind of a shorts and it is not quantal is incorrect. sent6: the minnow rushes trad and is not bimetallistic. sent7: if there is something such that that it does not rush cheeseburger and it is not a Jordanian does not hold the Bushman is not a lecithin. sent8: the Bushman is not quantal if there is something such that the fact that it is carcinogenic and it is non-bimetallistic is not true. sent9: the tailstock is a kind of a shorts if it is a kind of carcinogenic thing that is non-bimetallistic. sent10: if something is bimetallistic then the Bushman is not quantal. sent11: if something is not a soak then that it does not rush cheeseburger and is not Jordanian is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Bushman is not quantal if there is something such that the fact that it is carcinogenic and it is non-bimetallistic is not true.

that if the canvassing outback occurs then the drizzle occurs is correct.

sent1: the nosing barnacle does not occur and the laziness happens. sent2: if the fact that the canvassing outback occurs hold the monolatry does not occur. sent3: that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens. sent4: the blastocoelicness occurs. sent5: the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens. sent6: the fact that the non-invariableness and the collecting happens is not incorrect. sent7: the colorlessness occurs.

{A} -> {B}

sent1: (¬{AJ} & {JD}) sent2: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent4: {JE} sent5: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: (¬{EC} & {GK}) sent7: {D}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if the canvassing outback occurs then the drizzle occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the nosing barnacle does not occur and the laziness happens. sent2: if the fact that the canvassing outback occurs hold the monolatry does not occur. sent3: that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens. sent4: the blastocoelicness occurs. sent5: the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens. sent6: the fact that the non-invariableness and the collecting happens is not incorrect. sent7: the colorlessness occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the canvassing outback happens.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the monolatry does not occur but the rushing algebraist happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the drizzle happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens.

the fact that the burglar noses nonalignment hold.

sent1: if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program. sent2: The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer. sent3: the burglar does nose nonalignment if it is not stored-program.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the burglar noses nonalignment hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program. sent2: The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer. sent3: the burglar does nose nonalignment if it is not stored-program. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program.

the Andeanness happens.

sent1: the Andeanness does not occur if both the non-oncologicalness and the scrolling occurs. sent2: the constraint happens. sent3: the ambassadorialness happens. sent4: the victimization occurs. sent5: the waxenness happens. sent6: the audibleness happens. sent7: the Andeanness happens. sent8: the nosing drupelet occurs. sent9: the canvassing orangeade occurs. sent10: the masturbating happens. sent11: the artillery happens. sent12: the fact that the esophagealness happens is not false. sent13: the Lincolnesqueness occurs. sent14: the fact that the sociologicalness happens is right. sent15: the unpreventableness happens. sent16: the canvassing Rilke occurs. sent17: the longingness happens. sent18: the minusness occurs. sent19: if that both the oncologicalness and the non-low-interestness happens does not hold then the low-interestness occurs. sent20: the intercession happens.

{A}

sent1: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent2: {IO} sent3: {II} sent4: {DH} sent5: {GR} sent6: {BK} sent7: {A} sent8: {HO} sent9: {JK} sent10: {CL} sent11: {DJ} sent12: {DS} sent13: {BP} sent14: {IF} sent15: {DL} sent16: {DC} sent17: {FB} sent18: {BA} sent19: ¬({B} & ¬{IG}) -> {IG} sent20: {Q}

PROVED

PROVED

the low-interestness happens.

{IG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Andeanness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Andeanness does not occur if both the non-oncologicalness and the scrolling occurs. sent2: the constraint happens. sent3: the ambassadorialness happens. sent4: the victimization occurs. sent5: the waxenness happens. sent6: the audibleness happens. sent7: the Andeanness happens. sent8: the nosing drupelet occurs. sent9: the canvassing orangeade occurs. sent10: the masturbating happens. sent11: the artillery happens. sent12: the fact that the esophagealness happens is not false. sent13: the Lincolnesqueness occurs. sent14: the fact that the sociologicalness happens is right. sent15: the unpreventableness happens. sent16: the canvassing Rilke occurs. sent17: the longingness happens. sent18: the minusness occurs. sent19: if that both the oncologicalness and the non-low-interestness happens does not hold then the low-interestness occurs. sent20: the intercession happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Andeanness happens.

the personification is not fernless.

sent1: if something is non-three-dimensional thing that is cardiographic then it is not a kind of a foxhunt. sent2: if there is something such that it does not nose personification the personification does not nose personification and/or is not a kind of a candlesnuffer. sent3: if the fact that the ebb is a stockfish but not psychopharmacological does not hold then it is not a Exmoor. sent4: if something is not a kind of a foxhunt then the fact that it is bilious and it is not fernless does not hold. sent5: the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet. sent6: if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true. sent7: if that something is bilious but it is not fernless does not hold it is indiscreet. sent8: something does not nose personification if it is not a Exmoor. sent9: if something is contrasty it is not three-dimensional but cardiographic. sent10: the personification is bilious. sent11: that that the ebb is a stockfish that is not psychopharmacological is not false is incorrect. sent12: the mirage is contrasty if either the personification does not nose personification or it is not a candlesnuffer or both.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the mirage is indiscreet.

{B}{dt}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the personification is not fernless. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-three-dimensional thing that is cardiographic then it is not a kind of a foxhunt. sent2: if there is something such that it does not nose personification the personification does not nose personification and/or is not a kind of a candlesnuffer. sent3: if the fact that the ebb is a stockfish but not psychopharmacological does not hold then it is not a Exmoor. sent4: if something is not a kind of a foxhunt then the fact that it is bilious and it is not fernless does not hold. sent5: the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet. sent6: if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true. sent7: if that something is bilious but it is not fernless does not hold it is indiscreet. sent8: something does not nose personification if it is not a Exmoor. sent9: if something is contrasty it is not three-dimensional but cardiographic. sent10: the personification is bilious. sent11: that that the ebb is a stockfish that is not psychopharmacological is not false is incorrect. sent12: the mirage is contrasty if either the personification does not nose personification or it is not a candlesnuffer or both. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the personification is indiscreet.; sent6 -> int2: if the personification is indiscreet it is not ferned.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet.

the duster is not a kind of a vulgarian and it is not a scenario.

sent1: if something is not a rental it does not nose Winckelmann. sent2: if the thermohydrometer does not nose Winckelmann then the duster is not a vulgarian and it is not a scenario. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kind of non-digitigrade thing that does nose polysaccharide. sent4: the fact that something is lentic is true if it noses Winckelmann and/or it is not a kind of a rental. sent5: there is nothing such that it is not a vulgarian and is not a scenario. sent6: that the duster is both not a vulgarian and a scenario is not true.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{O}x & {HK}x) sent4: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> {JG}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the duster is not a vulgarian and not a scenario.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the duster is not a kind of a vulgarian and it is not a scenario. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a rental it does not nose Winckelmann. sent2: if the thermohydrometer does not nose Winckelmann then the duster is not a vulgarian and it is not a scenario. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kind of non-digitigrade thing that does nose polysaccharide. sent4: the fact that something is lentic is true if it noses Winckelmann and/or it is not a kind of a rental. sent5: there is nothing such that it is not a vulgarian and is not a scenario. sent6: that the duster is both not a vulgarian and a scenario is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is not a vulgarian and is not a scenario.

the weighbridge does sensitize algebraist.

sent1: that something is a kind of non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a kind of a farandole is not right if it does sensitize algebraist. sent2: something that rushes insert is not a kind of a sally and is not a Domitian. sent3: something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true. sent4: something does not sensitize algebraist if it is Ptolemaic. sent5: if that something is a sodium and not a sheepwalk is incorrect then it is a sheepwalk. sent6: the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole. sent7: that something is a kind of a Domitian that is a kind of a sally is not right if it is not a sodium. sent8: the counterbalance rushes insert if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not insignificant and not a paloverde is incorrect. sent9: if the adornment does nose globule that the weighbridge sensitizes algebraist is correct. sent10: the bitumen sensitizes algebraist. sent11: if something is not a farandole but it does nose globule it is Ptolemaic. sent12: that the adornment is not insignificant and it is not a kind of a paloverde does not hold. sent13: something is not a farandole but it noses globule if it is a sheepwalk. sent14: if the weighbridge is not a sally then the counterbalance does sensitize algebraist and is not a kind of a sheepwalk. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a farandole is wrong the respirator noses globule. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is a paloverde and does not rush insert. sent17: the fact that the adornment noses globule is true if the counterbalance is not a farandole.

{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the weighbridge does not sensitize algebraist.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the weighbridge does sensitize algebraist. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a kind of a farandole is not right if it does sensitize algebraist. sent2: something that rushes insert is not a kind of a sally and is not a Domitian. sent3: something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true. sent4: something does not sensitize algebraist if it is Ptolemaic. sent5: if that something is a sodium and not a sheepwalk is incorrect then it is a sheepwalk. sent6: the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole. sent7: that something is a kind of a Domitian that is a kind of a sally is not right if it is not a sodium. sent8: the counterbalance rushes insert if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not insignificant and not a paloverde is incorrect. sent9: if the adornment does nose globule that the weighbridge sensitizes algebraist is correct. sent10: the bitumen sensitizes algebraist. sent11: if something is not a farandole but it does nose globule it is Ptolemaic. sent12: that the adornment is not insignificant and it is not a kind of a paloverde does not hold. sent13: something is not a farandole but it noses globule if it is a sheepwalk. sent14: if the weighbridge is not a sally then the counterbalance does sensitize algebraist and is not a kind of a sheepwalk. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a farandole is wrong the respirator noses globule. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is a paloverde and does not rush insert. sent17: the fact that the adornment noses globule is true if the counterbalance is not a farandole. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole.

the contralateralness does not occur.

sent1: that the iriticness does not occur is caused by either that the iriticness does not occur or the nosing litterer or both. sent2: that the parcellation occurs brings about either the non-iriticness or the nosing litterer or both. sent3: if the fact that the clearance does not occur and the smallerness does not occur is not right then the premenstrualness does not occur. sent4: if the tankage happens the fact that the clearance does not occur and the smallerness does not occur does not hold. sent5: if the neologism occurs then the inoffensiveness happens or the rushing Kelly does not occur or both. sent6: if the premenstrualness does not occur then the sulking occurs or the artillery occurs or both. sent7: that the PM does not occur yields that the Z does not occur. sent8: the sulking and the broadening occurs. sent9: if that not the conditioning but the cubitalness occurs is not right then the overrunning happens. sent10: both the contralateralness and the cubitalness occurs. sent11: the cubitalness happens. sent12: the cruelty occurs. sent13: the parcellation happens and the rushing scheme happens if that the Z does not occur hold. sent14: the parade causes the tankage. sent15: the condition occurs if the fact that the mesicness happens and the condition does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the exaction occurs. sent17: the counterblast occurs. sent18: that the parade does not occur is prevented by the yips. sent19: the neologism occurs and the laicizing happens if the iriticness does not occur. sent20: if the condition occurs both the cubitalness and the non-contralateralness occurs. sent21: that the mesicness happens and the condition does not occur is false if the canvassing Regency happens.

¬{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the contralateralness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the contralateralness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the iriticness does not occur is caused by either that the iriticness does not occur or the nosing litterer or both. sent2: that the parcellation occurs brings about either the non-iriticness or the nosing litterer or both. sent3: if the fact that the clearance does not occur and the smallerness does not occur is not right then the premenstrualness does not occur. sent4: if the tankage happens the fact that the clearance does not occur and the smallerness does not occur does not hold. sent5: if the neologism occurs then the inoffensiveness happens or the rushing Kelly does not occur or both. sent6: if the premenstrualness does not occur then the sulking occurs or the artillery occurs or both. sent7: that the PM does not occur yields that the Z does not occur. sent8: the sulking and the broadening occurs. sent9: if that not the conditioning but the cubitalness occurs is not right then the overrunning happens. sent10: both the contralateralness and the cubitalness occurs. sent11: the cubitalness happens. sent12: the cruelty occurs. sent13: the parcellation happens and the rushing scheme happens if that the Z does not occur hold. sent14: the parade causes the tankage. sent15: the condition occurs if the fact that the mesicness happens and the condition does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the exaction occurs. sent17: the counterblast occurs. sent18: that the parade does not occur is prevented by the yips. sent19: the neologism occurs and the laicizing happens if the iriticness does not occur. sent20: if the condition occurs both the cubitalness and the non-contralateralness occurs. sent21: that the mesicness happens and the condition does not occur is false if the canvassing Regency happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the contralateralness and the cubitalness occurs.

both the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens.

sent1: the canvassing ashram is prevented by that the sensitizing Serinus does not occur and the progestationalness does not occur. sent2: the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs. sent3: the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs. sent4: if the canvassing ashram does not occur that the nosing mace happens and the canvassing bully happens does not hold.

({A} & {C})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens is wrong.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the canvassing ashram is prevented by that the sensitizing Serinus does not occur and the progestationalness does not occur. sent2: the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs. sent3: the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs. sent4: if the canvassing ashram does not occur that the nosing mace happens and the canvassing bully happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the nosing mace occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the canvassing bully happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs.

the cardinalfish is a avaram.

sent1: if something is not an expectation it does not canvass Bubo and canvasses antiferromagnetism. sent2: if that the photometer noses reuptake or it is fluvial or both is false the congee is not an expectation. sent3: if the cardinalfish is anticlimactic thing that does not nose Perdicidae it is non-pediatrics. sent4: if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold. sent5: if the cardinalfish does nose Perdicidae and is a kind of a carinate it does not canvass Bubo. sent6: the cardinalfish does nose airs but it does not rush electroscope. sent7: everything is not a carinate. sent8: something does not canvass Bubo if it does nose Perdicidae and it is a kind of a carinate. sent9: the cardinalfish is not a carinate. sent10: everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬({E}{b} v {F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: ({AN}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{CK}{aa} sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: ({M}{aa} & ¬{JJ}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cardinalfish is not a kind of a avaram.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cardinalfish is a avaram. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not an expectation it does not canvass Bubo and canvasses antiferromagnetism. sent2: if that the photometer noses reuptake or it is fluvial or both is false the congee is not an expectation. sent3: if the cardinalfish is anticlimactic thing that does not nose Perdicidae it is non-pediatrics. sent4: if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold. sent5: if the cardinalfish does nose Perdicidae and is a kind of a carinate it does not canvass Bubo. sent6: the cardinalfish does nose airs but it does not rush electroscope. sent7: everything is not a carinate. sent8: something does not canvass Bubo if it does nose Perdicidae and it is a kind of a carinate. sent9: the cardinalfish is not a carinate. sent10: everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate.

the pulsating does not occur.

sent1: the pulsating does not occur if the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur. sent2: if the canvassing impedance does not occur then the immersion happens and the canvassing fetterbush occurs. sent3: if not the dunging but the sensitizing Martial occurs the invertebrateness occurs. sent4: the immersion does not occur. sent5: the canvassing impedance does not occur if the fact that that the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is correct is wrong. sent6: the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur. sent7: if the decimating happens the noncrystallineness occurs. sent8: that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur. sent9: if the noncrystallineness happens then the immersion does not occur. sent10: the dunging does not occur and the sensitizing Martial occurs. sent11: that the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur is brought about by that the noncrystallineness happens. sent12: the rushing Topeka does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the immersion happens is correct then both the non-noncrystallineness and the sensitizing romper occurs. sent14: the puerperalness occurs and/or the rushing misfortune does not occur if the invertebrateness occurs. sent15: if the immersion occurs and the sensitizing romper does not occur then that the pulsating does not occur hold. sent16: the fact that both the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is false if that the ateleioticness occurs hold.

¬{E}

sent1: (¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{G} -> ({D} & {F}) sent3: (¬{P} & {O}) -> {N} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: ¬(¬{I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent6: (¬{S} & ¬{HH}) sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {J}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{D} sent10: (¬{P} & {O}) sent11: {B} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent12: ¬{FH} sent13: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent14: {N} -> ({L} v ¬{M}) sent15: ({D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{E} sent16: {H} -> ¬(¬{I} & {G})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pulsating happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pulsating does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pulsating does not occur if the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur. sent2: if the canvassing impedance does not occur then the immersion happens and the canvassing fetterbush occurs. sent3: if not the dunging but the sensitizing Martial occurs the invertebrateness occurs. sent4: the immersion does not occur. sent5: the canvassing impedance does not occur if the fact that that the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is correct is wrong. sent6: the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur. sent7: if the decimating happens the noncrystallineness occurs. sent8: that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur. sent9: if the noncrystallineness happens then the immersion does not occur. sent10: the dunging does not occur and the sensitizing Martial occurs. sent11: that the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur is brought about by that the noncrystallineness happens. sent12: the rushing Topeka does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the immersion happens is correct then both the non-noncrystallineness and the sensitizing romper occurs. sent14: the puerperalness occurs and/or the rushing misfortune does not occur if the invertebrateness occurs. sent15: if the immersion occurs and the sensitizing romper does not occur then that the pulsating does not occur hold. sent16: the fact that both the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is false if that the ateleioticness occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur.

the superoxide is non-apophatic.

sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.

¬{A}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the superoxide is not apophatic.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the superoxide is non-apophatic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the updraft is a discipline.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline.

the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a joke or it is nontaxable or both does not hold it rushes quid is not correct.

sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a joke and/or it is nontaxable does not hold it does rush quid. sent2: the tuberosity rushes quid if the fact that it is not a joke and/or it is nontaxable is not true. sent3: the tuberosity rushes quid if the fact that that it is a joke and/or it is not taxable hold is not true. sent4: if the tuberosity does not joke or is nontaxable or both it rushes quid. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not philanthropic and/or it canvasses spirogram then the fact that it is katabatic is true. sent6: something encroaches if the fact that it is not a tear and/or is a kind of an aggressor is not right. sent7: there exists something such that if either it is not a joke or it is nontaxable or both it rushes quid.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): (¬{AO}x v {N}x) -> {GB}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{EQ}x v {DR}x) -> {A}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there is something such that if the fact that it is not a tear and/or is an aggressor is incorrect then it encroaches.

(Ex): ¬(¬{EQ}x v {DR}x) -> {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a joke or it is nontaxable or both does not hold it rushes quid is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a joke and/or it is nontaxable does not hold it does rush quid. sent2: the tuberosity rushes quid if the fact that it is not a joke and/or it is nontaxable is not true. sent3: the tuberosity rushes quid if the fact that that it is a joke and/or it is not taxable hold is not true. sent4: if the tuberosity does not joke or is nontaxable or both it rushes quid. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not philanthropic and/or it canvasses spirogram then the fact that it is katabatic is true. sent6: something encroaches if the fact that it is not a tear and/or is a kind of an aggressor is not right. sent7: there exists something such that if either it is not a joke or it is nontaxable or both it rushes quid. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tuberosity rushes quid if the fact that it is not a joke and/or it is nontaxable is not true.

the silks does not sign and is not biologistic.

sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed.

(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> {E}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent3: (x): {GL}x -> (¬{JJ}x & ¬{GD}x) sent4: ¬{DG}{ga} sent5: ¬{B}{ep} sent6: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): {C}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: {D}{jg} sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({G}x & ¬{D}x) sent12: ({G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: ¬{D}{b} sent18: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{eg} sent20: (Ex): ¬{JK}x sent21: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent22: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{CK}x & ¬{E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the titmouse does not canvass incivility and it does not sign.

(¬{CK}{eg} & ¬{E}{eg})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the silks does not sign and is not biologistic. ; $context$ = sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does not nose trident.

the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar.

sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{G}{cb} -> ({E}{cb} & {F}{cb}) sent3: (x): ¬{P}x -> ({N}x & ¬{O}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> {J}x sent7: ¬{G}{cb} sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> {F}x sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬{J}{c} sent11: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent12: {E}{cb} -> ¬{D}{cb} sent13: (x): ({N}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{M}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent15: {Q}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & ¬{L}{d}) sent16: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent17: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent18: ¬{P}{e} sent19: ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {G}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

that the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar is not correct.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Elizabethan is not a seigniory.

the canvassing scheme occurs.

sent1: the unbrokenness occurs. sent2: the tribalization does not occur. sent3: the rushing jaguar does not occur. sent4: the rushing silverwork happens. sent5: if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur. sent6: both the nosing teratology and the innocentness happens if the tonalness does not occur. sent7: the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens.

{E}

sent1: {IO} sent2: ¬{JJ} sent3: ¬{D} sent4: {GK} sent5: {B} -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {BS}) sent7: ({A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the innocentness and the oppositeness happens.

({BS} & {IR})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the canvassing scheme occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the unbrokenness occurs. sent2: the tribalization does not occur. sent3: the rushing jaguar does not occur. sent4: the rushing silverwork happens. sent5: if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur. sent6: both the nosing teratology and the innocentness happens if the tonalness does not occur. sent7: the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens.

there exists something such that it is nidicolous.

sent1: there exists something such that that it does lap and it is a baron does not hold. sent2: if something is not a kind of an incidental it is hateful and is nidicolous. sent3: something is not hateful. sent4: if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous. sent5: if something is not a arpent then it is not an incidental. sent6: the fact that something that is hateful is not a Aras is right. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a lap and it is a baron does not hold the scrimshaw is not a kind of a lap. sent8: if the scrimshaw does not lap and it is not anaclinal then the antidiuretic is not a arpent.

(Ex): {B}x

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

PROVED

PROVED

there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Aras.

(Ex): ¬{EB}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is nidicolous. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does lap and it is a baron does not hold. sent2: if something is not a kind of an incidental it is hateful and is nidicolous. sent3: something is not hateful. sent4: if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous. sent5: if something is not a arpent then it is not an incidental. sent6: the fact that something that is hateful is not a Aras is right. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a lap and it is a baron does not hold the scrimshaw is not a kind of a lap. sent8: if the scrimshaw does not lap and it is not anaclinal then the antidiuretic is not a arpent. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the antidiuretic is nidicolous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not hateful.

the tarragon is diatonic.

sent1: if something does not rush boisterousness it is not a kind of a Fossa and enters. sent2: the doghouse is not a ossicle if it is not a kind of a Fossa and does not rush boisterousness. sent3: if something is not a horsetail and enhances then it does not rush boisterousness. sent4: if the doghouse is a kind of a ossicle then the addax does not cachinnate and it is migratory. sent5: something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory. sent6: the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect. sent7: the tarragon does not obscure. sent8: the tarragon does not obscure but it is diatonic if the addax does not cachinnate. sent9: that the submitter is not a horsetail but it does enhance hold if it is not Mishnaic. sent10: the submitter is not Mishnaic. sent11: if the addax does not cachinnate the tarragon does not obscure.

{AB}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the siamese does not obscure.

¬{AA}{eo}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tarragon is diatonic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not rush boisterousness it is not a kind of a Fossa and enters. sent2: the doghouse is not a ossicle if it is not a kind of a Fossa and does not rush boisterousness. sent3: if something is not a horsetail and enhances then it does not rush boisterousness. sent4: if the doghouse is a kind of a ossicle then the addax does not cachinnate and it is migratory. sent5: something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory. sent6: the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect. sent7: the tarragon does not obscure. sent8: the tarragon does not obscure but it is diatonic if the addax does not cachinnate. sent9: that the submitter is not a horsetail but it does enhance hold if it is not Mishnaic. sent10: the submitter is not Mishnaic. sent11: if the addax does not cachinnate the tarragon does not obscure. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect.

the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran.

sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the moorcock is not a kind of a Typhlopidae and is a Sumatran.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the novice is not a Sumatran.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right.

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Nepa it is a kind of a squinched and it is pentangular is incorrect.

sent1: the fixer is a squinched if it is not a Nepa. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Nepa then it is a squinched but not non-pentangular. sent3: the fixer is a kind of a squinched and it is pentangular if it is not a Nepa.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Nepa it is a kind of a squinched and it is pentangular is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fixer is a squinched if it is not a Nepa. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Nepa then it is a squinched but not non-pentangular. sent3: the fixer is a kind of a squinched and it is pentangular if it is not a Nepa. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fixer is a kind of a squinched and it is pentangular if it is not a Nepa.

the midst does outride but it is not technophilic.

sent1: if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic. sent2: the friend does not bleep. sent3: if something bleeps the fact that the dam outrides but it is not a Atlas is not false.

({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{jj} & ¬{BL}{jj})

PROVED

PROVED

the dam does outride but it is not a kind of a Atlas.

({AA}{jj} & ¬{BL}{jj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the midst does outride but it is not technophilic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic. sent2: the friend does not bleep. sent3: if something bleeps the fact that the dam outrides but it is not a Atlas is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic.

the terrine is not a kind of a Herrenvolk.

sent1: that the terrine is a kind of a Samoyedic that does lionize linecut is not true. sent2: something is not a kind of a Lethe if it does guggle blob. sent3: something is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the fact that it is both not a Herrenvolk and a Samoyedic does not hold. sent4: the Neopolitan does not lionize linecut if the fact that it does not guggle Neopolitan and is grateful is false. sent5: if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. sent6: if the terrine is a Samoyedic then it is not a Herrenvolk. sent7: if the fact that the terrine does not avow lipogram but it is doctrinal is not correct it is not a kind of a Handel. sent8: the fact that the whinstone is not a Samoyedic but it is a moralism is not true. sent9: the lecturer is not a kind of a Emerson if the fact that it does not divest and it does avow autogamy is false. sent10: the fact that the terrine does not avow octogenarian but it is a kind of a Herrenvolk does not hold. sent11: the fact that the terrine does not avow geneticism and is a Samoyedic does not hold. sent12: that the terrine is not a armet but a Lethe is incorrect. sent13: something is either a Emerson or binocular or both if it is not a Lethe. sent14: that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false. sent15: if something does bellow then it guggles blob.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬(¬{FU}{fq} & {GB}{fq}) -> ¬{AB}{fq} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{CF}{a} & {GC}{a}) -> ¬{EU}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{il} & {GQ}{il}) sent9: ¬(¬{IB}{fc} & {EI}{fc}) -> ¬{A}{fc} sent10: ¬(¬{JF}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{DC}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{EH}{a} & {D}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v {C}x) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent15: (x): {F}x -> {E}x

PROVED

PROVED

the drake is not a Samoyedic.

¬{AA}{gb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the terrine is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. ; $context$ = sent1: that the terrine is a kind of a Samoyedic that does lionize linecut is not true. sent2: something is not a kind of a Lethe if it does guggle blob. sent3: something is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the fact that it is both not a Herrenvolk and a Samoyedic does not hold. sent4: the Neopolitan does not lionize linecut if the fact that it does not guggle Neopolitan and is grateful is false. sent5: if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. sent6: if the terrine is a Samoyedic then it is not a Herrenvolk. sent7: if the fact that the terrine does not avow lipogram but it is doctrinal is not correct it is not a kind of a Handel. sent8: the fact that the whinstone is not a Samoyedic but it is a moralism is not true. sent9: the lecturer is not a kind of a Emerson if the fact that it does not divest and it does avow autogamy is false. sent10: the fact that the terrine does not avow octogenarian but it is a kind of a Herrenvolk does not hold. sent11: the fact that the terrine does not avow geneticism and is a Samoyedic does not hold. sent12: that the terrine is not a armet but a Lethe is incorrect. sent13: something is either a Emerson or binocular or both if it is not a Lethe. sent14: that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false. sent15: if something does bellow then it guggles blob. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk.

the fact that the fact that the blogger does avow self-defense and is not nonastringent is not incorrect is incorrect.

sent1: the horseshoe does not avow self-defense. sent2: the blogger is not nonastringent. sent3: the knotgrass is a nyala but it is not a Chalcis. sent4: the yawn is gastronomic but it does not scotch. sent5: the blogger does not grapple hansom. sent6: the blogger is a Ukrainian but it is not nonastringent. sent7: the blogger scotches and is not nonastringent. sent8: the blogger is not nonastringent if that the horseshoe does not scotch hold. sent9: if the blogger does not scotch the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent10: the horseshoe does not scotch. sent11: the horseshoe guggles Montana but it is not a kind of a Romanian. sent12: if the blogger does not scotch that the horseshoe avows self-defense is not true. sent13: the horseshoe incorporates and is not nonastringent. sent14: the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch. sent15: the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent16: if the horseshoe does not avow self-defense then the blogger scotches but it is not nonastringent. sent17: the horseshoe is not ratlike.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: ¬{AA}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ({GF}{bj} & ¬{DC}{bj}) sent4: ({AE}{hu} & ¬{A}{hu}) sent5: ¬{G}{b} sent6: ({AK}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: ({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: ({FU}{a} & ¬{GJ}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent13: ({F}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent17: ¬{DM}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the blogger does avow self-defense and is not nonastringent is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the horseshoe does not avow self-defense. sent2: the blogger is not nonastringent. sent3: the knotgrass is a nyala but it is not a Chalcis. sent4: the yawn is gastronomic but it does not scotch. sent5: the blogger does not grapple hansom. sent6: the blogger is a Ukrainian but it is not nonastringent. sent7: the blogger scotches and is not nonastringent. sent8: the blogger is not nonastringent if that the horseshoe does not scotch hold. sent9: if the blogger does not scotch the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent10: the horseshoe does not scotch. sent11: the horseshoe guggles Montana but it is not a kind of a Romanian. sent12: if the blogger does not scotch that the horseshoe avows self-defense is not true. sent13: the horseshoe incorporates and is not nonastringent. sent14: the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch. sent15: the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent16: if the horseshoe does not avow self-defense then the blogger scotches but it is not nonastringent. sent17: the horseshoe is not ratlike. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch.

the fact that the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune is incorrect.

sent1: something is semiautobiographical but it does not guggle topspin if it does not avow zayin. sent2: the councilwoman does not avow zayin if the fact that it is not a mystic and it does not default is false. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Brosmius is true the calmness is not acetonic. sent4: the councilwoman is not a kind of a Brosmius. sent5: if that the councilwoman is non-acetonic hold then the adenoid is a fortune. sent6: the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius. sent7: the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic. sent8: the adenoid is a fortune. sent9: something is a fortune and it is a kind of a Brosmius if it does not guggle topspin.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the calmness is not acetonic.

¬{A}{cn}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is semiautobiographical but it does not guggle topspin if it does not avow zayin. sent2: the councilwoman does not avow zayin if the fact that it is not a mystic and it does not default is false. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Brosmius is true the calmness is not acetonic. sent4: the councilwoman is not a kind of a Brosmius. sent5: if that the councilwoman is non-acetonic hold then the adenoid is a fortune. sent6: the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius. sent7: the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic. sent8: the adenoid is a fortune. sent9: something is a fortune and it is a kind of a Brosmius if it does not guggle topspin. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the councilwoman is not acetonic.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius.

the grappling producer does not occur.

sent1: the grappling producer does not occur if the dispensableness does not occur. sent2: both the bathing and the TAT occurs. sent3: both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs.

¬{E}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grappling producer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the grappling producer does not occur if the dispensableness does not occur. sent2: both the bathing and the TAT occurs. sent3: both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

both the bathing and the TAT occurs.

the bagatelle is not a card and not a A-team.

sent1: if the tracery is a kind of a rote the cud does transport. sent2: the bagatelle does not card. sent3: the tracery does displease. sent4: if the cud is carcinomatous then the bagatelle is not a card and it is not a A-team. sent5: something is carcinomatous if it is a kind of a transport.

(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c})

sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{F}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {D}{b} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {D}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bagatelle is not a card and not a A-team. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tracery is a kind of a rote the cud does transport. sent2: the bagatelle does not card. sent3: the tracery does displease. sent4: if the cud is carcinomatous then the bagatelle is not a card and it is not a A-team. sent5: something is carcinomatous if it is a kind of a transport. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is carcinomatous if it is a kind of a transport.

the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both.

sent1: if the lionizing application does not occur then the fact that the belay occurs is right. sent2: the belay happens and/or the nonabsorbentness happens. sent3: the onset occurs. sent4: that the belay occurs is not false if the fact that the shinny does not occur but the lionizing application happens is not right. sent5: the lionizing application happens.

({C} v ¬{D})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that either the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both is not true.

¬({C} v ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lionizing application does not occur then the fact that the belay occurs is right. sent2: the belay happens and/or the nonabsorbentness happens. sent3: the onset occurs. sent4: that the belay occurs is not false if the fact that the shinny does not occur but the lionizing application happens is not right. sent5: the lionizing application happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the monoclonal does diet.

sent1: the cocksfoot is not quartzose if there is something such that the fact that it does not guggle appro and/or it is not non-transcultural is incorrect. sent2: the monoclonal is a cacophony. sent3: the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive. sent4: the depository is not a kind of a Calvinist if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform does not hold. sent5: something is Calvinist if it is quartzose and it does not grapple cuneiform. sent6: if something is not quartzose that it is a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform is false. sent7: something is agranulocytic if it is seminal. sent8: the monoclonal is a endocardium and it is a slaveholder. sent9: if something is invasive it is a diet. sent10: something is quartzose but it does not grapple cuneiform if it does guggle appro. sent11: the testcross does not avow excogitator. sent12: that the testcross is regimentals is not incorrect. sent13: if the depository is Calvinist that the monoclonal is not a slaveholder or not invasive or both is not right. sent14: that something is not invasive but it is a kind of a slaveholder does not hold if that it is not a kind of a Calvinist hold. sent15: the abbe does not grapple eclipse if something that is regimentals does not avow excogitator. sent16: the monoclonal is a pock. sent17: the monoclonal is a slaveholder. sent18: the flatwork is a slaveholder. sent19: something is a slaveholder if it is invasive. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not grapple eclipse then that the conifer does not guggle appro and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent21: the pollen does diet.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{G}x v {H}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent2: {DQ}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent7: (x): {P}x -> {N}x sent8: ({GA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent10: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent11: ¬{K}{f} sent12: {J}{f} sent13: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): ({J}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{I}{e} sent16: {IL}{a} sent17: {A}{a} sent18: {A}{ah} sent19: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent20: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{G}{d} v {H}{d}) sent21: {C}{g}

PROVED

PROVED

the monoclonal is not a diet.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the monoclonal does diet. ; $context$ = sent1: the cocksfoot is not quartzose if there is something such that the fact that it does not guggle appro and/or it is not non-transcultural is incorrect. sent2: the monoclonal is a cacophony. sent3: the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive. sent4: the depository is not a kind of a Calvinist if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform does not hold. sent5: something is Calvinist if it is quartzose and it does not grapple cuneiform. sent6: if something is not quartzose that it is a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform is false. sent7: something is agranulocytic if it is seminal. sent8: the monoclonal is a endocardium and it is a slaveholder. sent9: if something is invasive it is a diet. sent10: something is quartzose but it does not grapple cuneiform if it does guggle appro. sent11: the testcross does not avow excogitator. sent12: that the testcross is regimentals is not incorrect. sent13: if the depository is Calvinist that the monoclonal is not a slaveholder or not invasive or both is not right. sent14: that something is not invasive but it is a kind of a slaveholder does not hold if that it is not a kind of a Calvinist hold. sent15: the abbe does not grapple eclipse if something that is regimentals does not avow excogitator. sent16: the monoclonal is a pock. sent17: the monoclonal is a slaveholder. sent18: the flatwork is a slaveholder. sent19: something is a slaveholder if it is invasive. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not grapple eclipse then that the conifer does not guggle appro and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent21: the pollen does diet. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the monoclonal is invasive.; sent9 -> int2: the monoclonal is a kind of a diet if it is invasive.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive.

if the mucosalness occurs the storage occurs.

sent1: if the emplacement occurs the lionizing accommodation happens. sent2: the toying occurs if the reshipping happens. sent3: the grappling adenosine happens. sent4: if that the narcoterrorism occurs and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is incorrect the storage occurs. sent5: if that the narcoterrorism does not occur and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is wrong then the storage happens. sent6: if the fact that either the paraphrasing does not occur or the awnlessness does not occur or both does not hold then the prodigy happens. sent7: if the mucosalness occurs then the narcoterrorism occurs. sent8: if that the sharing does not occur is incorrect then the nontechnicalness occurs. sent9: that the self-discovery does not occur or the solid does not occur or both is not correct. sent10: the narcoterrorism happens. sent11: the insistence happens. sent12: the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false.

{A} -> {B}

sent1: {IN} -> {BF} sent2: {HL} -> {IS} sent3: {EC} sent4: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬(¬{EQ} v ¬{CQ}) -> {BP} sent7: {A} -> {AA} sent8: {FH} -> {EL} sent9: ¬(¬{DL} v ¬{GL}) sent10: {AA} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬(¬{EL} v ¬{IN}) -> {G}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the mucosalness occurs the storage occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the emplacement occurs the lionizing accommodation happens. sent2: the toying occurs if the reshipping happens. sent3: the grappling adenosine happens. sent4: if that the narcoterrorism occurs and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is incorrect the storage occurs. sent5: if that the narcoterrorism does not occur and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is wrong then the storage happens. sent6: if the fact that either the paraphrasing does not occur or the awnlessness does not occur or both does not hold then the prodigy happens. sent7: if the mucosalness occurs then the narcoterrorism occurs. sent8: if that the sharing does not occur is incorrect then the nontechnicalness occurs. sent9: that the self-discovery does not occur or the solid does not occur or both is not correct. sent10: the narcoterrorism happens. sent11: the insistence happens. sent12: the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the narcoterrorism happens.

the diastrophism is not a Tamus or does not wake or both.

sent1: something does not wake and does avow spike if it is a pomelo. sent2: if the spike is not uncooperative it is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus. sent3: either the diastrophism is a Tamus or it is not evidentiary or both. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pomelo is true then the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent5: if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent6: the supervisor is unpredictable if the fact that it is algorithmic is not false. sent7: the fact that the Reoviridae is not a kind of a ICAO and is uncooperative is false if there exists something such that it is unpredictable. sent8: the fact that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or it is not a kind of a waking is false if the buddy does not avow spike. sent9: the buddy does not avow spike if the fact that the chimneypot does avow spike and is not a pomelo does not hold. sent10: the diastrophism is not bilious if the fact that it is bilious thing that does not avow washroom is wrong. sent11: the supervisor is algorithmic. sent12: if either something is a Tamus or it is nosohusial or both then the diastrophism does not gripe. sent13: if the fact that the spike is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus hold the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus. sent14: the spike is not uncooperative if the fact that the Reoviridae is not a ICAO but uncooperative is incorrect. sent15: the buddy does avow washroom. sent16: there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo. sent17: the chimneypot is non-bilious if the diemaker does avow washroom and/or does grapple navel. sent18: if something is not bilious then that it avows spike and it is not a pomelo does not hold. sent19: if something does avow washroom then that the diastrophism is bilious and does not avow washroom is not correct. sent20: the automation is not a pomelo and/or it guggles xenon. sent21: something is a kind of a Lange that avows washroom if it does not guggle Sambucus.

(¬{C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or is not a waking is not right.

¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the diastrophism is not a Tamus or does not wake or both. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not wake and does avow spike if it is a pomelo. sent2: if the spike is not uncooperative it is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus. sent3: either the diastrophism is a Tamus or it is not evidentiary or both. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pomelo is true then the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent5: if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent6: the supervisor is unpredictable if the fact that it is algorithmic is not false. sent7: the fact that the Reoviridae is not a kind of a ICAO and is uncooperative is false if there exists something such that it is unpredictable. sent8: the fact that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or it is not a kind of a waking is false if the buddy does not avow spike. sent9: the buddy does not avow spike if the fact that the chimneypot does avow spike and is not a pomelo does not hold. sent10: the diastrophism is not bilious if the fact that it is bilious thing that does not avow washroom is wrong. sent11: the supervisor is algorithmic. sent12: if either something is a Tamus or it is nosohusial or both then the diastrophism does not gripe. sent13: if the fact that the spike is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus hold the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus. sent14: the spike is not uncooperative if the fact that the Reoviridae is not a ICAO but uncooperative is incorrect. sent15: the buddy does avow washroom. sent16: there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo. sent17: the chimneypot is non-bilious if the diemaker does avow washroom and/or does grapple navel. sent18: if something is not bilious then that it avows spike and it is not a pomelo does not hold. sent19: if something does avow washroom then that the diastrophism is bilious and does not avow washroom is not correct. sent20: the automation is not a pomelo and/or it guggles xenon. sent21: something is a kind of a Lange that avows washroom if it does not guggle Sambucus. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent5 -> int1: the diastrophism is not a Tamus.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo.

the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens.

sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.

({C} & {B})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the sarcasticness happens.

{J}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the gather happens.; sent4 -> int2: the lionizing Calvinist happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.

the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster.

sent1: the researcher is not hydrographic. sent2: if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic. sent3: the researcher is a kind of a polluter and does saturate if the model does not ruin. sent4: that the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster is not wrong if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Shavian thing that grapples chlordiazepoxide is incorrect. sent5: that the etodolac is a kind of a polluter is right if that it does saturate is true. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Arrhenius and it does grapple dove does not hold the fact that the stickler is non-Shavian is not incorrect. sent7: the testator is not punctual. sent8: something guggles burgomaster if it is hydrographic. sent9: the etodolac saturates if the chlordiazepoxide does ruin. sent10: the model is not a ruin if the etodolac is punctual and not a ruin. sent11: the doctorfish does not oxidize. sent12: if that the doctorfish is not a kind of a Shavian is right that that it is a kind of hydrographic thing that guggles burgomaster hold is not right. sent13: that the researcher is not a currentness is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is a tube and hydrographic does not hold. sent14: if something is ateleiotic then it does not purport and grapples dove. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not ateleiotic and does grapple dove is not right then the fact that the model does not purport is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of Shavian thing that does grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent17: if there is something such that it is hydrographic the fact that the researcher is some and postwar does not hold. sent18: if something is a polluter then the fact that it is not ateleiotic and it does grapple dove does not hold. sent19: the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster if there exists something such that it does not grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent20: if something is a kind of a polluter then it is ateleiotic. sent21: that the researcher does grapple chlordiazepoxide and is a Shavian is not correct if it does not guggle burgomaster. sent22: the chlordiazepoxide is punctual and it is a kind of a ruin.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ¬{H}{c} -> ({F}{a} & {G}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: {G}{d} -> {F}{d} sent6: (x): ¬({ER}x & {D}x) -> ¬{AA}{k} sent7: ¬{I}{cn} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent9: {H}{e} -> {G}{d} sent10: ({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent11: ¬{EP}{b} sent12: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬({GH}x & {A}x) -> ¬{GL}{a} sent14: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}{c} sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AP}{a} & {FG}{a}) sent18: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent19: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent21: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent22: ({I}{e} & {H}{e})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster. ; $context$ = sent1: the researcher is not hydrographic. sent2: if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic. sent3: the researcher is a kind of a polluter and does saturate if the model does not ruin. sent4: that the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster is not wrong if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Shavian thing that grapples chlordiazepoxide is incorrect. sent5: that the etodolac is a kind of a polluter is right if that it does saturate is true. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Arrhenius and it does grapple dove does not hold the fact that the stickler is non-Shavian is not incorrect. sent7: the testator is not punctual. sent8: something guggles burgomaster if it is hydrographic. sent9: the etodolac saturates if the chlordiazepoxide does ruin. sent10: the model is not a ruin if the etodolac is punctual and not a ruin. sent11: the doctorfish does not oxidize. sent12: if that the doctorfish is not a kind of a Shavian is right that that it is a kind of hydrographic thing that guggles burgomaster hold is not right. sent13: that the researcher is not a currentness is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is a tube and hydrographic does not hold. sent14: if something is ateleiotic then it does not purport and grapples dove. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not ateleiotic and does grapple dove is not right then the fact that the model does not purport is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of Shavian thing that does grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent17: if there is something such that it is hydrographic the fact that the researcher is some and postwar does not hold. sent18: if something is a polluter then the fact that it is not ateleiotic and it does grapple dove does not hold. sent19: the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster if there exists something such that it does not grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent20: if something is a kind of a polluter then it is ateleiotic. sent21: that the researcher does grapple chlordiazepoxide and is a Shavian is not correct if it does not guggle burgomaster. sent22: the chlordiazepoxide is punctual and it is a kind of a ruin. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the doctorfish does not oxidize.

the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation.

sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation.

{D}{aa}

sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{HC}{aa} & {CN}{aa}) -> ¬{AT}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{AB}{dr} & {AF}{dr}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬(¬{BL}{hc} & {AB}{hc}) sent6: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent8: ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{c} sent11: ¬(¬{C}{ik} & {JI}{ik}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: {A}{aa} -> {D}{aa} sent17: ¬(¬{H}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{D}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sgraffito is not a debarkation.

¬{D}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong.

there exists something such that if it does not avow devisor and is not a round it is a melody.

sent1: if the conjugate does not avow devisor and it is not round it is a melody. sent2: the conjugate is a melody if it does not avow devisor and does round.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not avow devisor and is not a round it is a melody. ; $context$ = sent1: if the conjugate does not avow devisor and it is not round it is a melody. sent2: the conjugate is a melody if it does not avow devisor and does round. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the conjugate does not avow devisor and it is not round it is a melody.

that there is something such that if it is not an absoluteness then that it is a kind of a Lie and it is a Attilio is not right is false.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a wiggler then the fact that it is both a curvature and unfashionable does not hold. sent2: that the barony is an absoluteness and it is a sociable does not hold if it is not a Selenipedium. sent3: if the fact that the pteridophyte is a bombie hold the fact that it is a Lie and it is a besom is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter it is an exhumation and it kisses. sent5: that the pteridophyte is both a Lie and a Attilio is not true if it is not an absoluteness. sent6: if the Togaviridae is a Lie then the fact that it is a kind of a ruminant and does grapple jiggermast does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not guggle rippled then the fact that it is a return and it is a kind of a rarity is false.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x))

sent1: (Ex): {AI}x -> ¬({CH}x & {BH}x) sent2: ¬{CN}{dc} -> ¬({A}{dc} & {EN}{dc}) sent3: {IU}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {CQ}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{BT}x -> ({IE}x & {BQ}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {AA}{dm} -> ¬({HO}{dm} & {JK}{dm}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{HC}x -> ¬({DU}x & {GG}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not an absoluteness then that it is a kind of a Lie and it is a Attilio is not right is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a wiggler then the fact that it is both a curvature and unfashionable does not hold. sent2: that the barony is an absoluteness and it is a sociable does not hold if it is not a Selenipedium. sent3: if the fact that the pteridophyte is a bombie hold the fact that it is a Lie and it is a besom is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter it is an exhumation and it kisses. sent5: that the pteridophyte is both a Lie and a Attilio is not true if it is not an absoluteness. sent6: if the Togaviridae is a Lie then the fact that it is a kind of a ruminant and does grapple jiggermast does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not guggle rippled then the fact that it is a return and it is a kind of a rarity is false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the pteridophyte is both a Lie and a Attilio is not true if it is not an absoluteness.

the grappling Bond does not occur.

sent1: that the kowtow happens and the zymoidness happens yields that the grappling Bond does not occur. sent2: the zymoidness happens. sent3: the non-zymoidness brings about that the grappling Bond happens and the kowtow occurs.

¬{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the grappling Bond happens is true.

{C}