Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not a arsenical does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true.

The fact that the synovia does not hold an ovulation and that the sexton is not a signaler is correct.

the sexton is not a signaler.

that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not a arsenical does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true.

The fact that the sexton is not a signaler is correct.

something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true.

that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not a arsenical does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true.

The fact that the synovia does not hold an ovulation and that the sexton is not a signaler is true.

if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct.

the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist.

sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable.

{A}{aa}

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{AJ}x sent4: {I}{d} -> {H}{c} sent5: ¬{M}{g} -> ({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent6: {I}{e} -> {I}{d} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x v ¬{G}x) sent9: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{AB}x sent11: {K}{f} -> {J}{f} sent12: ¬{IJ}{aa} sent13: ({FU}{ha} & ¬{FI}{ha}) sent14: (¬{F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent15: (x): ({FO}x & ¬{IN}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent16: (x): ¬{U}x sent17: ¬{M}{g} sent18: ¬{GB}{aa} sent19: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent20: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent21: ({A}{aa} & {CK}{aa}) -> ¬{HA}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the councilwoman is a surrealist.

{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the councilwoman is a Podilymbus but it is not a Psithyrus.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the councilwoman is not a surrealist is true if it is both a Podilymbus and not a Psithyrus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus.

everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus.

if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist.

that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false.

sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog.

({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat.

The ultramarine is Deweyan.

that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan.

that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false.

sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog.

({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat.

The ultramarine is recommended by Deweyan.

that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat.

that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false.

sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog.

({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat.

The ultra marine is Deweyan.

that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect.

that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false.

sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog.

({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat.

Deweyan is the name of the ultramarine.

the utensil is a stake.

the schnook does recommend copyreader.

sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle.

{AB}{a}

sent1: ¬{EB}{a} -> ({FO}{a} & ¬{DN}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent5: {AB}{is} sent6: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent7: {D}{c} sent8: ¬{AF}{en} -> ({GU}{en} & ¬{AB}{en}) sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({JI}{a} & ¬{EU}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {B}x) sent11: ({AA}{a} & ¬{EJ}{a}) sent12: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the schnook recommends copyreader.

{AB}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the schnook does recommend copyreader. ; $context$ = sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the schnook is a niqaabi but it does not recommend copyreader.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader.

if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader.

the schnook does not piffle.

both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs.

sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens.

({B} & {C})

sent1: {A} sent2: {GR} sent3: ({HU} & {BM}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {O} sent7: ({DF} & {T}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {HI})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the recommending bitter-bark and the knell happens is wrong.

¬({B} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the recommending bitter-bark occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs.

both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs.

the knell occurs.

the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus.

sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format.

(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a})

sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (¬{N}{it} & ¬{B}{it}) sent4: ({DF}{a} & ¬{BC}{a}) -> ¬{CD}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Casanova is both not Aleutians and not a cast.

(¬{B}{dh} & ¬{GE}{dh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format.

the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format.

the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians.

the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout.

sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron.

{A}{a} -> {C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: {HL}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent6: {C}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the algebraist is a tetrahedron.

{B}{as}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout. ; $context$ = sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pit is a readout.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the pit is a tetrahedron.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the self-starter is noncritical is true.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron.

if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron.

the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct.

something is a Kaufman and does surprise.

sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise.

(Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {FO}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {B}{hb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is a Kaufman and does surprise. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is a Kaufman.

something is a Kaufman.

the pheno-safranine is a surprise.

the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety.

sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both.

{A}{a}

sent1: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{HU}x & {DN}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{G}x sent5: (Ex): {AB}x sent6: ¬{E}{d} -> (¬{D}{d} v {F}{d}) sent7: (¬{EB}{aa} & {BK}{aa}) sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{E}{d} sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent14: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent15: (x): (¬{D}x v {F}x) -> ¬{D}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. ; $context$ = sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a prostitute and it does quintuple.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true.

that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true.

the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple.

the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold.

sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true.

¬({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{DG}) -> {DG} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: {CQ} -> ¬{HN} sent6: {DK} sent7: {M} sent8: (¬{FJ} & ¬{HC}) -> {FT} sent9: {EF} -> ¬{L} sent10: {IU} -> ¬({L} & ¬{HF}) sent11: ¬({HM} & ¬{EF}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({T} & ¬{EK}) sent14: {HI} -> (¬{EB} & ¬{DD}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: {A} sent17: {HB} -> ¬({FA} & ¬{CM}) sent18: ¬({D} & {C}) sent19: {DE} -> ¬({IF} & {BN})

PROVED

PROVED

the contraception happens.

{DG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.

The cuckoldry does not occur if the blondness occurs.

the blond happens.

the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold.

sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true.

¬({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{DG}) -> {DG} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: {CQ} -> ¬{HN} sent6: {DK} sent7: {M} sent8: (¬{FJ} & ¬{HC}) -> {FT} sent9: {EF} -> ¬{L} sent10: {IU} -> ¬({L} & ¬{HF}) sent11: ¬({HM} & ¬{EF}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({T} & ¬{EK}) sent14: {HI} -> (¬{EB} & ¬{DD}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: {A} sent17: {HB} -> ¬({FA} & ¬{CM}) sent18: ¬({D} & {C}) sent19: {DE} -> ¬({IF} & {BN})

PROVED

PROVED

the contraception happens.

{DG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.

The cuckoldry does not occur if the blondness holds.

the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.

the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold.

sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true.

¬({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{DG}) -> {DG} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: {CQ} -> ¬{HN} sent6: {DK} sent7: {M} sent8: (¬{FJ} & ¬{HC}) -> {FT} sent9: {EF} -> ¬{L} sent10: {IU} -> ¬({L} & ¬{HF}) sent11: ¬({HM} & ¬{EF}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({T} & ¬{EK}) sent14: {HI} -> (¬{EB} & ¬{DD}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: {A} sent17: {HB} -> ¬({FA} & ¬{CM}) sent18: ¬({D} & {C}) sent19: {DE} -> ¬({IF} & {BN})

PROVED

PROVED

the contraception happens.

{DG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.

The cuckoldry doesn't occur if the blondness occurs.

if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true.

there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist.

sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ({JH}x v {A}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

either the ropewalk is nervous or it is indeterminate or both if it is not supportive.

¬{EP}{p} -> ({JH}{p} v {A}{p})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist. ; $context$ = sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive.

something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive.

something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate.

the exocentricness does not occur.

sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬{D} sent2: {HQ} sent3: {AP} -> {CU} sent4: {E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent5: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {HH} sent9: {F} sent10: {CQ} -> ¬({DF} & {GF}) sent11: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent12: ¬{HB} sent13: {F} -> {E} sent14: {EP} sent15: ¬{CL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {G} -> ¬{F} sent18: {FO} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent20: {B} -> (¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the deployment occurs.

{CP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exocentricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens.

The Gallicness occurs if a crime is committed.

the cybercrime occurs.

the exocentricness does not occur.

sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬{D} sent2: {HQ} sent3: {AP} -> {CU} sent4: {E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent5: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {HH} sent9: {F} sent10: {CQ} -> ¬({DF} & {GF}) sent11: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent12: ¬{HB} sent13: {F} -> {E} sent14: {EP} sent15: ¬{CL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {G} -> ¬{F} sent18: {FO} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent20: {B} -> (¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the deployment occurs.

{CP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exocentricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens.

The Gallicness occurs if there is a crime.

if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right.

the taboret is not endoparasitic.

sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the taboret is not endoparasitic is right.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the taboret is not endoparasitic. ; $context$ = sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the fact that the chaperon is not a mildew and it is not a kind of a methanogen is not true.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen.

there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen.

the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect.

the Split is not a tansy.

sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the CRP does recommend candlepins or it is not cooling or both.

({P}{id} v ¬{JI}{id})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Split is not a tansy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Split is a tansy.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the Split is a councillorship and/or it is not a kind of a humification.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy.

the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy.

the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right.

the rigout is not non-neolithic.

sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate.

{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the rigout is not neolithic.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rigout is not non-neolithic. ; $context$ = sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the niqab does speculate.

the niqab does speculate.

the niqab is a recitative.

the backpacking gamboge occurs.

sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{IH} sent2: ¬({K} & {J}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & {J}) sent4: ¬{DK} -> ¬{EA} sent5: ({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} sent8: ¬{GT} -> ¬{AP} sent9: ¬{ET} sent10: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{R} -> ({Q} & ¬{P}) sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: ({Q} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O} sent15: {M} -> ¬{L} sent16: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{O} -> ({N} & {M}) sent18: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent19: ({GC} & ¬{EI}) sent20: ¬{A} sent21: (¬{S} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{R}

PROVED

PROVED

the backpacking gamboge does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the backpacking gamboge occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs.

The recommendation timer is true if it doesn't happen, but not the tolerance.

the recommending timer does not occur.

the backpacking gamboge occurs.

sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{IH} sent2: ¬({K} & {J}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & {J}) sent4: ¬{DK} -> ¬{EA} sent5: ({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} sent8: ¬{GT} -> ¬{AP} sent9: ¬{ET} sent10: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{R} -> ({Q} & ¬{P}) sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: ({Q} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O} sent15: {M} -> ¬{L} sent16: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{O} -> ({N} & {M}) sent18: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent19: ({GC} & ¬{EI}) sent20: ¬{A} sent21: (¬{S} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{R}

PROVED

PROVED

the backpacking gamboge does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the backpacking gamboge occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs.

The recommendation timer isn't true if it doesn't happen.

that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry.

the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true.

sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian.

(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty.

if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty.

that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist.

the tendergreen is not arborical.

sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: ({AB}{is} v ¬{FB}{is}) sent2: {E}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent6: (x): {GU}x -> ({FL}{aa} v ¬{GP}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AB}{gg} sent8: {G}{c} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

the tendergreen is arborical.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tendergreen is not arborical. ; $context$ = sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical.

If something is buccal then it is not arborical.

something is a blasphemy.

the tendergreen is not arborical.

sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: ({AB}{is} v ¬{FB}{is}) sent2: {E}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent6: (x): {GU}x -> ({FL}{aa} v ¬{GP}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AB}{gg} sent8: {G}{c} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

the tendergreen is arborical.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tendergreen is not arborical. ; $context$ = sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical.

If something is buccal it is not arborical.

the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy.

the handhold is a quad.

sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad.

{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the handhold is a quad. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin.

It is a prosperity if the hand hold is not gymnastics.

the handhold is not gymnastics.

the handhold is a quad.

sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad.

{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the handhold is a quad. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin.

It is a prosperity if the handhold is not gymnastics.

if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad.

the councilwoman does not backpack mummy.

sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({H}x v {G}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent3: ¬{B}{gg} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v {G}x) sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬{E}x sent9: {JH}{a} sent10: {U}{a} sent11: {DQ}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {H}{a} -> {HA}{a} sent13: ¬{GP}{a} sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: {EA}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬({H}x v {G}x) sent18: ¬{C}{a} sent19: ¬{H}{c} sent20: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the mummy does not boat requested.

¬{B}{ff}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. ; $context$ = sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested.

The councilwoman has a backpack mummy hold.

there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right.

the councilwoman does not backpack mummy.

sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({H}x v {G}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent3: ¬{B}{gg} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v {G}x) sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬{E}x sent9: {JH}{a} sent10: {U}{a} sent11: {DQ}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {H}{a} -> {HA}{a} sent13: ¬{GP}{a} sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: {EA}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬({H}x v {G}x) sent18: ¬{C}{a} sent19: ¬{H}{c} sent20: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the mummy does not boat requested.

¬{B}{ff}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. ; $context$ = sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested.

The boat was requested if the councilwoman has a backpack mummy hold.

if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested.

the traverser is a Ottumwa.

sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater.

{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({HJ}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{ET}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{ac} sent6: (Ex): {HF}x sent7: (Ex): ({BU}x & {IT}x) sent8: ¬{DU}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{dq} sent10: ¬{BL}{a} sent11: (Ex): {JB}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent13: (Ex): {IC}x sent14: ¬{IC}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{fg} sent16: ¬{JB}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: ¬{FL}{a} sent18: (Ex): {IP}x sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: (Ex): ({L}x & {CF}x) sent21: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent22: (x): ({HO}x & {B}x) -> ¬{HA}{hh}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the traverser is a Ottumwa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. ; $proof$ =

sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a proctoscopy that is a crater.

There is a crater.

the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater.

the traverser is a Ottumwa.

sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater.

{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({HJ}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{ET}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{ac} sent6: (Ex): {HF}x sent7: (Ex): ({BU}x & {IT}x) sent8: ¬{DU}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{dq} sent10: ¬{BL}{a} sent11: (Ex): {JB}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent13: (Ex): {IC}x sent14: ¬{IC}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{fg} sent16: ¬{JB}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: ¬{FL}{a} sent18: (Ex): {IP}x sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: (Ex): ({L}x & {CF}x) sent21: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent22: (x): ({HO}x & {B}x) -> ¬{HA}{hh}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the traverser is a Ottumwa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. ; $proof$ =

sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a proctoscopy that is a crater.

A proctoscopy is a crater.

something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest.

the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct.

sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the chromatography is a company but it is not a doctor.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal.

The skink is not a part of the body if the company is not a doctor.

if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal.

the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct.

sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the chromatography is a company but it is not a doctor.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal.

The skink is not a part of the body if it is a company and not a doctor.

the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating.

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

sent1: (¬{CO}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent2: {D}{d} -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {CS}x -> {AE}{ac} sent8: (x): {JA}x -> {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): {GJ}x -> {GB}{a} sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}x sent15: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {D}{d} sent17: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it boats Lyra.

There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false.

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

sent1: (¬{CO}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent2: {D}{d} -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {CS}x -> {AE}{ac} sent8: (x): {JA}x -> {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): {GJ}x -> {GB}{a} sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}x sent15: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {D}{d} sent17: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it boats Lyra.

There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry.

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

sent1: (¬{CO}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent2: {D}{d} -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {CS}x -> {AE}{ac} sent8: (x): {JA}x -> {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): {GJ}x -> {GB}{a} sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}x sent15: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {D}{d} sent17: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the phenazopyridine is unpriestly.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it boats Lyra.

There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

something is not unpriestly if it does not carry.

the pincer is antiquarian.

sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical.

{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) sent10: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{c} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent13: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) -> ¬{EQ}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pincer is non-antiquarian hold.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pincer is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero.

The presbytery is not a kind of banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic.

the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog.

the pincer is antiquarian.

sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical.

{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) sent10: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{c} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent13: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) -> ¬{EQ}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pincer is non-antiquarian hold.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pincer is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero.

Thepresbytery is not a kind of banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic.

if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true.

the pincer is antiquarian.

sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical.

{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) sent10: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{c} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent13: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) -> ¬{EQ}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pincer is non-antiquarian hold.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pincer is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero.

The presbytery is not a banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic.

if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian.

the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct.

sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inharmoniousness does not occur.

There is no inharmoniousness.

the will-o'-the-wisp happens.

the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct.

sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inharmoniousness does not occur.

The inharmoniousness doesn't happen.

that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.

the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct.

sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inharmoniousness does not occur.

The in harmoniousness doesn't happen.

that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur.

the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct.

sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inharmoniousness does not occur.

The inharmoniousness does not happen.

the serving cockfight does not occur.

the Beguine does backpack wood.

sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng.

{B}{b}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{Q}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{HN}{a} -> ¬(¬{AE}{a} & {JI}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent5: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{N}x & {M}x) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & {I}x) sent7: ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({G}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{AA}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {DU}x) sent15: ¬{A}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): (¬{N}x & {M}x) -> ¬{L}x sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent20: ¬{AC}{aa} sent21: (¬{F}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Beguine is both not a calceus and a cutlassfish does not hold.

¬(¬{AB}{b} & {DU}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Beguine does backpack wood. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold.

If the loaner doesn't recommend manipulation, it's like a calceus doesn't hold.

that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold.

the Beguine does backpack wood.

sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng.

{B}{b}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{Q}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{HN}{a} -> ¬(¬{AE}{a} & {JI}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent5: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{N}x & {M}x) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & {I}x) sent7: ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({G}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{AA}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {DU}x) sent15: ¬{A}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): (¬{N}x & {M}x) -> ¬{L}x sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent20: ¬{AC}{aa} sent21: (¬{F}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Beguine is both not a calceus and a cutlassfish does not hold.

¬(¬{AB}{b} & {DU}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Beguine does backpack wood. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold.

If the loaner doesn't recommend manipulation, it is like a calceus doesn't hold.

the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right.

the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus.

sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {C}{cb} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: {GM}{a} sent6: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: {A}{gg} sent8: {BQ}{b} sent9: ({IE}{m} & {FF}{m}) sent10: ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: {A}{gs} sent12: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent15: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent16: {B}{b} sent17: {A}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent19: {A}{a} sent20: {AL}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the carapace is not a Zinjanthropus.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus. ; $context$ = sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the demonstrator is cosmologic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic.

the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic.

if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus.

the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby.

sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false.

¬{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the dairymaid recommends sassaby is not wrong.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby. ; $context$ = sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness.

if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness.

the dairymaid does recommend clearway.

the abaxialness does not occur.

sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: {HS} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{K} sent5: {AM} sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬({E} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬({E} & {H}) sent9: {A} sent10: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: (¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the abaxialness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the abaxialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs.

The recommendation penuriousness occurs when the backpacking single occurs.

the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur.

the abaxialness does not occur.

sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: {HS} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{K} sent5: {AM} sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬({E} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬({E} & {H}) sent9: {A} sent10: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: (¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the abaxialness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the abaxialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs.

The recommended penuriousness occurs when the backpacking single occurs.

if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens.

the PC does not expectorate.

sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the PC does expectorate.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the PC does not expectorate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook.

If the Argentinian is a handbook, the star-thistle is an essay.

the Argentinian is a handbook.

the PC does not expectorate.

sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the PC does expectorate.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the PC does not expectorate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook.

If the Argentinian is a handbook, then the star-thistle is an essay.

the star-thistle does serve PC.

the stand does backpack Vireonidae.

sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both.

{B}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stand does backpack Vireonidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless.

If it is not lipless, something is non-seductive.

there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both.

the stand does backpack Vireonidae.

sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both.

{B}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stand does backpack Vireonidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless.

If it is not lipless, it is a non-seductive thing.

the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education.

the cardcase is not a voyeurism.

sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the mazer is a kind of a voyeurism.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cardcase is not a voyeurism. ; $context$ = sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder.

The mazer serves powder if the residence backpacks non participants.

the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold.

the cardcase is not a voyeurism.

sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the mazer is a kind of a voyeurism.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cardcase is not a voyeurism. ; $context$ = sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder.

The mazer does serve powder if the residence backpacks non participants.

if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold.

the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both.

sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct.

({C}{b} v {B}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Creole is arthrosporic and/or mercurial is not correct.

¬({C}{b} v {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial.

if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial.

if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple.

the methane does not backpack methane.

sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{EO}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({C}{ig} & {F}{ig}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: {A}{cr} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{F}{c} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the methane does not backpack methane.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the methane does not backpack methane. ; $context$ = sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless.

If it is stingless, the Genip backpacks do not backpack stepper.

the genip is not stingless.

the methane does not backpack methane.

sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{EO}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({C}{ig} & {F}{ig}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: {A}{cr} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{F}{c} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the methane does not backpack methane.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the methane does not backpack methane. ; $context$ = sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless.

It does not backpack stepper if it is stingless.

if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane.

the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right.

sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the foolscap is not a kind of a procession but it is a kind of a run.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. ; $proof$ =

sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is filar.

Everything is filar.

the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar.

the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right.

sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the foolscap is not a kind of a procession but it is a kind of a run.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. ; $proof$ =

sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is filar.

Everything is filar, it's just 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 in 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299

that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.

the delegate is temporal.

sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the delegate is not temporal.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the delegate is temporal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong.

If the vanillin is not a prosperity then it is not a bowl.

the vanillin is not a prosperity.

the delegate is temporal.

sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the delegate is not temporal.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the delegate is temporal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong.

If the vanillin is not a prosperity, then it is not a bowl.

if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.

the delegate is temporal.

sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the delegate is not temporal.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the delegate is temporal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong.

If the vanillin isn't a prosperity then it isn't a bowl.

something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian.

the pawl does serve antimony.

sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pawl does not serve antimony.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pawl does serve antimony. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: that the effects does serve malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets.

there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets.

if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony.

that the cocobolo is a ylem hold.

sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the cocobolo is not a ylem.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct.

It is not a brougham and it is not correct.

the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect.

that the cocobolo is a ylem hold.

sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the cocobolo is not a ylem.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct.

There is a reason that it is not a brougham and a reason that it is not correct.

if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem.

the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness.

sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the polymorphism is a protectiveness is not incorrect.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness. ; $context$ = sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness.

the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness.

the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus.

the personal is vinaceous.

sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil.

{A}{aa}

sent1: {A}{o} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the personal is vinaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene.

If something is not hairless, it is an incontinence.

the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil.

the personal is vinaceous.

sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil.

{A}{aa}

sent1: {A}{o} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the personal is vinaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene.

If something is hairless, it is an incontinence.

the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong.

the personal is vinaceous.

sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil.

{A}{aa}

sent1: {A}{o} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the personal is vinaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene.

If something is not hairless then it is incontinence.

if something is a Athene it is vinaceous.

the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic.

({A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> {IA}x sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}{aa} sent3: {IA}{b} -> {IA}{di} sent4: (x): {B}x sent5: {D}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent6: {D}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent8: ({CP}{aa} & {HU}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): {E}x sent12: (x): ({HJ}x & {IJ}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the megacolon is an impression and it corks.

({IA}{di} & {DT}{di})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a renegade.

there exists something such that it is not a renegade.

the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade.

the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the PIN is biographic.

{AB}{ib}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the sprigtail is both non-stereoscopic and non-biographic hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic.

if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic.

the washcloth is a glomerulus.

the Timorese is a skirt.

sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian.

{AA}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Timorese is a skirt.

{AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Timorese is a skirt. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone.

A skirt and a epigone are not something that is not a carload.

there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong.

the Timorese is a skirt.

sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian.

{AA}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Timorese is a skirt.

{AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Timorese is a skirt. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone.

A skirt and epigone are not something that is not a carload.

the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false.

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider.

There is something that does boat roughrider.

the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider.

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider.

Something does boat roughrider.

the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct.

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage.

({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider.

It does boat roughrider.

that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top.

the branchlet is a eggar.

sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the wheat is not a kind of a Phalaenoptilus.

¬{B}{ak}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the branchlet is a eggar. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the branchlet is a kind of a eggar.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus.; sent4 -> int2: the radicle is not a Phalaenoptilus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar.

the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar.

the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold.

the bellows is a kind of a frontal.

sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false.

{D}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bellows is a kind of a frontal. ; $context$ = sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser.

the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser.

that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect.

the pintle is lacrimatory.

sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory.

{D}{c}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: (x): {C}x -> {D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the aphanite does not backpack aphanite.

¬{C}{dp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pintle is lacrimatory. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze.

The chancery is not a squeeze if the polymorphism is organizational.

the polymorphism is organizational.

the pintle is lacrimatory.

sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory.

{D}{c}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: (x): {C}x -> {D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the aphanite does not backpack aphanite.

¬{C}{dp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pintle is lacrimatory. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze.