Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the twitterer does not jell inutility.

sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. sent5: if something is not surgical then it is a chlorofucin and it is irremovable. sent6: if something does not approximate or it does not foreclose or both then it does not foreclose. sent7: something is not surgical if it does not tuck sloping and does not scrabble discernability. sent8: if the hydroxychloroquine is irremovable that the introitus is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not right. sent9: everything does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability.

¬{B}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the twitterer does jell inutility.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the twitterer does not jell inutility. ; $context$ = sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. sent5: if something is not surgical then it is a chlorofucin and it is irremovable. sent6: if something does not approximate or it does not foreclose or both then it does not foreclose. sent7: something is not surgical if it does not tuck sloping and does not scrabble discernability. sent8: if the hydroxychloroquine is irremovable that the introitus is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not right. sent9: everything does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist.

something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist.

the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses.

the cuticle is not a Greece.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. sent4: the cuticle is a salp. sent5: the coordinator is not stingy. sent6: everything is a velleity and it is not a kind of a brim. sent7: the fact that the cackler is nascent but not a gravity does not hold if the fact that the anemone buffets is correct. sent8: if that the cuticle does abuse Okinawa but it is not nascent is not right it does not abuse Okinawa. sent9: if something is an afterthought it does not scrabble cleavers and is an ulcer. sent10: the anemone buffets if the coordinator is not a buffets but it is a kind of an ulcer. sent11: if a velleity does not brim it is not a lodestar. sent12: if the coordinator is not stingy then the fact that it scrabbles strip and/or it is a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent13: The Okinawa abuses cuticle. sent14: the cuticle abuses Okinawa. sent15: something that does not abuse Okinawa is a nod and a Greece. sent16: if the dovekie is south the coordinator is an afterthought. sent17: the cuticle is not accusative. sent18: something is not non-south and it does jell Cercidiphyllum if the fact that it is not a lodestar is true.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cuticle is a nod and it is a kind of a salp.

({BI}{a} & {D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cuticle is not a Greece. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. sent4: the cuticle is a salp. sent5: the coordinator is not stingy. sent6: everything is a velleity and it is not a kind of a brim. sent7: the fact that the cackler is nascent but not a gravity does not hold if the fact that the anemone buffets is correct. sent8: if that the cuticle does abuse Okinawa but it is not nascent is not right it does not abuse Okinawa. sent9: if something is an afterthought it does not scrabble cleavers and is an ulcer. sent10: the anemone buffets if the coordinator is not a buffets but it is a kind of an ulcer. sent11: if a velleity does not brim it is not a lodestar. sent12: if the coordinator is not stingy then the fact that it scrabbles strip and/or it is a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent13: The Okinawa abuses cuticle. sent14: the cuticle abuses Okinawa. sent15: something that does not abuse Okinawa is a nod and a Greece. sent16: if the dovekie is south the coordinator is an afterthought. sent17: the cuticle is not accusative. sent18: something is not non-south and it does jell Cercidiphyllum if the fact that it is not a lodestar is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the cuticle abuses Okinawa.

the cuticle abuses Okinawa.

the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp.

the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent3: ¬{BM} -> ¬({H} & ¬{BE}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent6: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent10: (¬{G} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{P} sent13: ¬({GN} & ¬{BR}) -> ¬{GD} sent14: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent15: ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{HL} sent16: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent17: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent18: ¬{A} sent19: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B}

PROVED

PROVED

the scrabbling breadth happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect.

The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness doesn't occur.

the phosphorousness does not occur.

the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent3: ¬{BM} -> ¬({H} & ¬{BE}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent6: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent10: (¬{G} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{P} sent13: ¬({GN} & ¬{BR}) -> ¬{GD} sent14: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent15: ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{HL} sent16: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent17: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent18: ¬{A} sent19: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B}

PROVED

PROVED

the scrabbling breadth happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect.

The noncollapsibleness is incorrect if the phosphorousness does not occur.

the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold.

the gneiss is unwieldy.

sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy and it is coital if it is non-fearful. sent4: that the analyst is a kind of an extension and it abuses heterocycle is not true. sent5: the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent6: if something is non-oneiric the fact that it is intramuscular and it is not a kind of an extension does not hold. sent7: the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent8: there exists something such that it is unpublishable. sent9: the mandarin is unwieldy if the analyst is unwieldy. sent10: something is not oneiric if it is unwieldy.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the mandarin is a kind of intramuscular thing that is not an extension is not correct.

¬({CS}{iu} & ¬{AA}{iu})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gneiss is unwieldy. ; $context$ = sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy and it is coital if it is non-fearful. sent4: that the analyst is a kind of an extension and it abuses heterocycle is not true. sent5: the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent6: if something is non-oneiric the fact that it is intramuscular and it is not a kind of an extension does not hold. sent7: the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent8: there exists something such that it is unpublishable. sent9: the mandarin is unwieldy if the analyst is unwieldy. sent10: something is not oneiric if it is unwieldy. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right.

the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right.

the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right.

the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens.

sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does not occur the nonreversibleness does not occur. sent6: the wait happens. sent7: the androgynousness and the typography occurs. sent8: the resolution does not occur if the fact that the stunner or the exaggeration or both occurs is not right. sent9: the spiral happens. sent10: the patching occurs and the path happens. sent11: the preparation occurs. sent12: the gelling Poussin happens. sent13: the fact that the stunner happens and/or the exaggeration occurs does not hold if the abusing cardiography does not occur. sent14: the consisting happens. sent15: the spending and the cosmetology happens. sent16: the pectinealness occurs and the flashflood occurs. sent17: the nonreversibleness occurs. sent18: the scrabbling ripple happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: {EQ} sent2: ({HS} & {EM}) sent3: {GC} sent4: {HK} sent5: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {U} sent7: ({CP} & {JF}) sent8: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {GG} sent10: ({BI} & {BR}) sent11: {BO} sent12: {GF} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({E} v {F}) sent14: {DS} sent15: ({HO} & {CT}) sent16: ({FE} & {GJ}) sent17: {B} sent18: {A}

PROVED

PROVED

the eyeful happens.

{EN}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does not occur the nonreversibleness does not occur. sent6: the wait happens. sent7: the androgynousness and the typography occurs. sent8: the resolution does not occur if the fact that the stunner or the exaggeration or both occurs is not right. sent9: the spiral happens. sent10: the patching occurs and the path happens. sent11: the preparation occurs. sent12: the gelling Poussin happens. sent13: the fact that the stunner happens and/or the exaggeration occurs does not hold if the abusing cardiography does not occur. sent14: the consisting happens. sent15: the spending and the cosmetology happens. sent16: the pectinealness occurs and the flashflood occurs. sent17: the nonreversibleness occurs. sent18: the scrabbling ripple happens. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the scrabbling ripple happens.

the scrabbling ripple happens.

the nonreversibleness occurs.

the Irani is not impersonal.

sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if something is not communal it is not actinometric and it is not psychometric. sent5: the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful. sent6: something is a kind of non-communal thing that is not impersonal if it is not an approaching. sent7: the rejection is communal but it is not an approaching if the slag is not a crayfish. sent8: the salami is digital if the fact that it is not digital and it does not abuse imposture does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not digital but it is a kind of a petty is false then it is not a crayfish. sent10: the rattle is a kind of non-actinometric thing that does not cricket. sent11: the Irani is both not a adrenarche and not scalar. sent12: the Irani is not actinometric. sent13: if something does guard then that it is a kind of non-digital thing that does not abuse imposture is not true. sent14: if something is not non-actinometric but non-restful then it is not impersonal. sent15: something is not a kind of an approaching if it is not an approaching and/or is a kind of a crayfish. sent16: the fact that the rejection is not a crayfish is false. sent17: the salami is a guard.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lagan is not actinometric and it is not psychometric.

(¬{AA}{o} & ¬{CC}{o})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Irani is not impersonal. ; $context$ = sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if something is not communal it is not actinometric and it is not psychometric. sent5: the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful. sent6: something is a kind of non-communal thing that is not impersonal if it is not an approaching. sent7: the rejection is communal but it is not an approaching if the slag is not a crayfish. sent8: the salami is digital if the fact that it is not digital and it does not abuse imposture does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not digital but it is a kind of a petty is false then it is not a crayfish. sent10: the rattle is a kind of non-actinometric thing that does not cricket. sent11: the Irani is both not a adrenarche and not scalar. sent12: the Irani is not actinometric. sent13: if something does guard then that it is a kind of non-digital thing that does not abuse imposture is not true. sent14: if something is not non-actinometric but non-restful then it is not impersonal. sent15: something is not a kind of an approaching if it is not an approaching and/or is a kind of a crayfish. sent16: the fact that the rejection is not a crayfish is false. sent17: the salami is a guard. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the Irani is not impersonal if that it is not actinometric but non-restful is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal.

if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal.

the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful.

the skate is not a kind of a civilian.

sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the skate is not a kind of a civilian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if that the skate is not unusual but it does jell Dijon is not true then it is not a kind of a civilian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect.

Dijon is incorrect if something doesn't jell Segway hold.

everything does not jell Segway.

the skate is not a kind of a civilian.

sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the skate is not a kind of a civilian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if that the skate is not unusual but it does jell Dijon is not true then it is not a kind of a civilian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect.

Dijon is incorrect if something does not jell Segway hold.

if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian.

that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold.

sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: if the diastolicness does not occur then the swoosh occurs and/or the splashing does not occur. sent5: the castigation does not occur. sent6: if that that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwardingness does not occur is not true is correct then the mouse does not occur. sent7: that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is brought about by that the gelling agelessness happens but the referral does not occur. sent8: if the Jacobean occurs then that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwarding does not occur is wrong. sent9: if that the fact that the scrabbling mastery does not occur and the egging does not occur is true is not correct the Jacobeanness occurs. sent10: if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. sent11: if not the gelling agelessness but the referral occurs then the scrabbling magnetite does not occur. sent12: the scrabbling magnetite occurs if that the contextualness does not occur and the polytheisticness does not occur is false. sent13: the non-asterismalness is brought about by that the monumentalness does not occur and the abusing optimist does not occur. sent14: the solving does not occur and the castigation does not occur. sent15: that the digitalness happens is prevented by that the captioning happens and/or that the digitalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that both the non-contextualness and the non-polytheisticness occurs is false if the fictionalization does not occur. sent17: if the mouse does not occur both the abusing Dracocephalum and the caption occurs. sent18: the polytheisticness does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬{DA} sent4: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{EE} sent6: ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: {O} -> ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{P}) -> {O} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) -> {B} sent13: (¬{AC} & ¬{FH}) -> ¬{EP} sent14: (¬{DJ} & ¬{EE}) sent15: ({J} v ¬{I}) -> ¬{I} sent16: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent17: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent18: ¬{A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the scrabbling magnetite happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: if the diastolicness does not occur then the swoosh occurs and/or the splashing does not occur. sent5: the castigation does not occur. sent6: if that that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwardingness does not occur is not true is correct then the mouse does not occur. sent7: that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is brought about by that the gelling agelessness happens but the referral does not occur. sent8: if the Jacobean occurs then that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwarding does not occur is wrong. sent9: if that the fact that the scrabbling mastery does not occur and the egging does not occur is true is not correct the Jacobeanness occurs. sent10: if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. sent11: if not the gelling agelessness but the referral occurs then the scrabbling magnetite does not occur. sent12: the scrabbling magnetite occurs if that the contextualness does not occur and the polytheisticness does not occur is false. sent13: the non-asterismalness is brought about by that the monumentalness does not occur and the abusing optimist does not occur. sent14: the solving does not occur and the castigation does not occur. sent15: that the digitalness happens is prevented by that the captioning happens and/or that the digitalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that both the non-contextualness and the non-polytheisticness occurs is false if the fictionalization does not occur. sent17: if the mouse does not occur both the abusing Dracocephalum and the caption occurs. sent18: the polytheisticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right.

if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right.

the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur.

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both.

Either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.

that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs.

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both.

Either the unreadiness or the Tantricness happens.

that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur.

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both.

Either the unreadiness or Tantricness happens.

that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand.

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both.

Either the unreadiness occurs or the Tantricness occurs.

if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens.

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both.

The unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens.

the confluence does not occur.

the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold.

sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoat. sent3: if there is something such that it either does not abuse undercoat or is not internal or both then the chlorofucin is not stenographic. sent4: the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and is not a Thuja is not right. sent5: there is something such that it does abuse undercoat or is not internal or both. sent6: if something is not a kind of a Malathion but it is a kind of a jade it is not wiry. sent7: the chlorofucin is not a kind of a deep and/or it is non-respiratory if it is stenographic. sent8: something is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja if it is not wiry. sent9: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and not a Thuja is not correct. sent10: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. sent11: that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct. sent12: either something is not internal or it is a kind of a Thuja or both. sent13: the ionization is not stenographic if either something does not abuse undercoat or it is not a Thuja or both. sent14: either the ionization does abuse undercoat or it is not internal or both. sent15: that the trombonist is a kind of stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat does not hold if the ionization is not stenographic. sent16: the ionization does not abuse undercoat or is internal or both.

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that it is not a deep or is not respiratory or both.

(Ex): (¬{II}x v ¬{FH}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoat. sent3: if there is something such that it either does not abuse undercoat or is not internal or both then the chlorofucin is not stenographic. sent4: the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and is not a Thuja is not right. sent5: there is something such that it does abuse undercoat or is not internal or both. sent6: if something is not a kind of a Malathion but it is a kind of a jade it is not wiry. sent7: the chlorofucin is not a kind of a deep and/or it is non-respiratory if it is stenographic. sent8: something is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja if it is not wiry. sent9: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and not a Thuja is not correct. sent10: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. sent11: that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct. sent12: either something is not internal or it is a kind of a Thuja or both. sent13: the ionization is not stenographic if either something does not abuse undercoat or it is not a Thuja or both. sent14: either the ionization does abuse undercoat or it is not internal or both. sent15: that the trombonist is a kind of stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat does not hold if the ionization is not stenographic. sent16: the ionization does not abuse undercoat or is internal or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect.

if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect.

that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct.

the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect.

sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement.

¬((Ex): {B}x)

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there exists something such that that it gels Mutinus and abuses ripple does not hold.

(Ex): ¬({JF}x & {ED}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold.

It is a Mutinus that does not hold and it does scrabble decumary.

the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong.

the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect.

sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement.

¬((Ex): {B}x)

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there exists something such that that it gels Mutinus and abuses ripple does not hold.

(Ex): ¬({JF}x & {ED}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold.

There is a Mutinus that does not hold and a scrabble decumary that does.

the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance.

the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio.

sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the photocopier is not a Kuroshio.

¬{AB}{cj}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. ; $context$ = sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum.

Carum does not think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility.

there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard.

the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio.

sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the photocopier is not a Kuroshio.

¬{AB}{cj}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. ; $context$ = sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum.

Carum doesn't think that the punchboard is a kind of indigestibility.

the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard.

the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut.

sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a demythologization is right. sent4: if a counterespionage is a Mammut the carotene is a neutral. sent5: the gunnery is a kind of a counterespionage. sent6: something is a kind of a thumbprint and is not a demythologization if it is not neutral. sent7: the carotene is a Mammut. sent8: there exists something such that it is a Mammut. sent9: that something is a counterespionage that is a kind of a Mammut does not hold if the fact that it is not a demythologization is not incorrect. sent10: if something is a Mammut the fact that the fact that the Tunisian is a kind of a neutral and is a unappetizingness is incorrect is correct. sent11: something is a kind of a thumbprint. sent12: if the carotene is a kind of a quad then it is a kind of an intern. sent13: the carotene is a neutral if something that is a demythologization is a thumbprint. sent14: the nucleosynthesis is Jurassic and it is a thumbprint. sent15: something is unpeaceful if that it is not a kind of a counterespionage and it is not unpeaceful is not correct. sent16: the carotene is a kind of a thumbprint. sent17: if the invitation is a neutral it does jell noon. sent18: something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. sent19: something is not a demythologization and is a thumbprint if it is not a neutral. sent20: something is not a neutral if that it is neutral and a unappetizingness does not hold. sent21: the fact that that the carotene is not a counterespionage and not unpeaceful is not wrong is wrong if there exists something such that it is a counterespionage. sent22: the carotene does jell siderocyte if it is a thumbprint.

({D}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {DA}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> {C}{a} sent5: {D}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (Ex): {E}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: {DE}{a} -> {ED}{a} sent13: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent14: ({IR}{ht} & {B}{ht}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{BE}x) -> {BE}x sent16: {B}{a} sent17: {C}{fo} -> {BJ}{fo} sent18: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent20: (x): ¬({C}x & {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent21: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{BE}{a}) sent22: {B}{a} -> {DS}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the carotene is a counterespionage and it is a Mammut is incorrect.

¬({D}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut. ; $context$ = sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a demythologization is right. sent4: if a counterespionage is a Mammut the carotene is a neutral. sent5: the gunnery is a kind of a counterespionage. sent6: something is a kind of a thumbprint and is not a demythologization if it is not neutral. sent7: the carotene is a Mammut. sent8: there exists something such that it is a Mammut. sent9: that something is a counterespionage that is a kind of a Mammut does not hold if the fact that it is not a demythologization is not incorrect. sent10: if something is a Mammut the fact that the fact that the Tunisian is a kind of a neutral and is a unappetizingness is incorrect is correct. sent11: something is a kind of a thumbprint. sent12: if the carotene is a kind of a quad then it is a kind of an intern. sent13: the carotene is a neutral if something that is a demythologization is a thumbprint. sent14: the nucleosynthesis is Jurassic and it is a thumbprint. sent15: something is unpeaceful if that it is not a kind of a counterespionage and it is not unpeaceful is not correct. sent16: the carotene is a kind of a thumbprint. sent17: if the invitation is a neutral it does jell noon. sent18: something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. sent19: something is not a demythologization and is a thumbprint if it is not a neutral. sent20: something is not a neutral if that it is neutral and a unappetizingness does not hold. sent21: the fact that that the carotene is not a counterespionage and not unpeaceful is not wrong is wrong if there exists something such that it is a counterespionage. sent22: the carotene does jell siderocyte if it is a thumbprint. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral.

something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral.

something is a kind of a thumbprint.

the monotype does scrabble bummer.

sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile.

{B}{aa}

sent1: ¬{A}{hj} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{AE}{aa} sent4: {HG}{iu} -> ¬{BM}{iu} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {BG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{df} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the monotype does scrabble bummer. ; $context$ = sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer.

It does not scrabble bummer if that is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya.

that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile.

the monotype does scrabble bummer.

sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile.

{B}{aa}

sent1: ¬{A}{hj} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{AE}{aa} sent4: {HG}{iu} -> ¬{BM}{iu} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {BG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{df} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the monotype does scrabble bummer. ; $context$ = sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer.

If it's not a love-in-a-mist and it's not a Romneya, then it's not scrabble bummer.

the monotype is not a kind of a gentile.

the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong.

sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not jell Transfiguration then that the inspiration is autographic and does not scrabble dressing is not right. sent4: that the rugulah is quadraphonic thing that does not jell Araneae is incorrect if the hatchery is voluntary. sent5: if the scandium is not epicyclic either it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both. sent6: if the fact that the LP is a kind of a soffit but it is not epicyclic is wrong then the scandium is not epicyclic. sent7: that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. sent8: if that something is a kind of autographic thing that does not scrabble dressing is wrong then it is not autographic. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is quadraphonic and does not jell Araneae is not right then the additive is not quadraphonic. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both is not wrong then the Uighur does not jell Transfiguration. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it tucks Uighur and is not a voluntary is not correct. sent12: the LP is a kind of a Palaemonidae. sent13: the fact that the hatchery is a kind of a none but it does not abuse bummer does not hold if something does not jell spume. sent14: if there is something such that it is not autographic the scavenger does not jell spume and does not jell spandrel. sent15: if the fact that something is a none that does not abuse bummer does not hold then it is a voluntary. sent16: the fact that the LP is both a soffit and not epicyclic is wrong if it is a Palaemonidae. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it does abuse philadelphus and does not jell impermeability is false.

¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: ¬{FO}{a} -> ¬({BN}{a} & {AK}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent4: {A}{b} -> ¬({EU}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬{J}{f} -> (¬{K}{f} v ¬{H}{f}) sent6: ¬({M}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent9: (x): ¬({EU}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{EU}{dc} sent10: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{H}x) -> ¬{H}{e} sent11: (Ex): ¬({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: {L}{g} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent15: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent16: {L}{g} -> ¬({M}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent17: (Ex): ¬({HO}x & ¬{HD}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the additive is not quadraphonic.

¬{EU}{dc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not jell Transfiguration then that the inspiration is autographic and does not scrabble dressing is not right. sent4: that the rugulah is quadraphonic thing that does not jell Araneae is incorrect if the hatchery is voluntary. sent5: if the scandium is not epicyclic either it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both. sent6: if the fact that the LP is a kind of a soffit but it is not epicyclic is wrong then the scandium is not epicyclic. sent7: that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. sent8: if that something is a kind of autographic thing that does not scrabble dressing is wrong then it is not autographic. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is quadraphonic and does not jell Araneae is not right then the additive is not quadraphonic. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both is not wrong then the Uighur does not jell Transfiguration. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it tucks Uighur and is not a voluntary is not correct. sent12: the LP is a kind of a Palaemonidae. sent13: the fact that the hatchery is a kind of a none but it does not abuse bummer does not hold if something does not jell spume. sent14: if there is something such that it is not autographic the scavenger does not jell spume and does not jell spandrel. sent15: if the fact that something is a none that does not abuse bummer does not hold then it is a voluntary. sent16: the fact that the LP is both a soffit and not epicyclic is wrong if it is a Palaemonidae. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it does abuse philadelphus and does not jell impermeability is false. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the rugulah abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary.

that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary.

the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary.

the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission.

sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that does not scrabble pretermission then the follow-up is not a lurker. sent4: the follow-up is not a kind of a Mediterranean. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Mediterranean. sent6: the follow-up does not scrabble pretermission if something is not Mediterranean and it is not a lurker. sent7: if the follow-up is Mycenaean it does not abuse chance-medley and it is not a rise. sent8: something is not a kind of a lurker but it is Mediterranean. sent9: if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean. sent10: the follow-up is not a scolion and is not a Mediterranean. sent11: the reproduction is not a lurker. sent12: the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission if something that is not a lurker is not a Mediterranean. sent13: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Adalia. sent14: there is something such that it is not a pliers. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it does not jell follow-up hold. sent16: there is something such that it is Mycenaean.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{IQ}{b} sent2: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent3: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> (¬{HJ}{a} & ¬{FE}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent10: (¬{IG}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (Ex): ¬{HR}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{GK}x sent15: (Ex): ¬{AP}x sent16: (Ex): {A}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there is something such that it does not abuse chance-medley and it does not rise.

(Ex): (¬{HJ}x & ¬{FE}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that does not scrabble pretermission then the follow-up is not a lurker. sent4: the follow-up is not a kind of a Mediterranean. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Mediterranean. sent6: the follow-up does not scrabble pretermission if something is not Mediterranean and it is not a lurker. sent7: if the follow-up is Mycenaean it does not abuse chance-medley and it is not a rise. sent8: something is not a kind of a lurker but it is Mediterranean. sent9: if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean. sent10: the follow-up is not a scolion and is not a Mediterranean. sent11: the reproduction is not a lurker. sent12: the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission if something that is not a lurker is not a Mediterranean. sent13: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Adalia. sent14: there is something such that it is not a pliers. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it does not jell follow-up hold. sent16: there is something such that it is Mycenaean. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission.

the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission.

if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean.

the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold.

sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

sent1: ({HQ} & {EH}) sent2: {C} sent3: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{ED}) sent4: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{HI}) -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ({CR} & {FH}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{GR}) -> ¬{CC} sent10: {FQ} sent11: {FB} sent12: {AQ} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: {EO} sent15: ({A} & {C}) sent16: ¬{GM} sent17: ¬(¬{BC} & ¬{JH}) -> ¬{HT} sent18: ¬(¬{GM} & ¬{AI}) sent19: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction occurs is not incorrect does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur.

The speculating does not occur if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect.

that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong.

the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold.

sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

sent1: ({HQ} & {EH}) sent2: {C} sent3: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{ED}) sent4: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{HI}) -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ({CR} & {FH}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{GR}) -> ¬{CC} sent10: {FQ} sent11: {FB} sent12: {AQ} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: {EO} sent15: ({A} & {C}) sent16: ¬{GM} sent17: ¬(¬{BC} & ¬{JH}) -> ¬{HT} sent18: ¬(¬{GM} & ¬{AI}) sent19: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction occurs is not incorrect does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur.

The speculating doesn't happen if the non-nomotheticness is incorrect.

the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs.

the bars does not occur.

sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bars happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bars does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs.

If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian occurs.

the oblate happens.

the bars does not occur.

sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bars happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bars does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs.

If the oblateness occurs, the Zoroastrian will occur.

the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens.

the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both.

sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Guyanese does not crouch or it is a spinmeister or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold.

The potpie is not a spinmeister if it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles.

the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold.

the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both.

sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Guyanese does not crouch or it is a spinmeister or both.

(¬{C}{b} v {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Guyanese is not a crouch or a spinmeister or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent2: the fact that the Guyanese either is not a crouch or scrabbles EDS or both is not right if the potpie does not scrabbles EDS. sent3: the Guyanese does crouch. sent4: if the fact that the harvest is not technical is right the exocrine is not non-prokaryotic and not non-apiarian. sent5: the fact that that the potpie does abuse surcoat and it does scrabble EDS is not false does not hold. sent6: if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right. sent7: the potpie is not a kind of a bid. sent8: the potpie is not a spinmeister if it does not abuse surcoat. sent9: the exocrine is not vicinal if that it is a kindness and is not centromeric is not correct. sent10: the Guyanese is not a kind of a spinmeister if that it crouches and does abuse surcoat is not true. sent11: the Guyanese is a crouch if the potpie is not a spinmeister. sent12: something does not jell fetlock if that it is not vicinal is not incorrect. sent13: if the potpie does scrabble EDS or it is not a retardant or both then that the Babylonian does not scrabble EDS hold. sent14: if the Guyanese does not jell Skuld then the potpie crouches and it is a kind of a spinmeister. sent15: the fact that the Guyanese is a spinmeister and it scrabbles EDS does not hold. sent16: something is a kind of non-genuine thing that gels Skuld if it does not jell fetlock. sent17: if the potpie is not a kind of a retardant then the Guyanese is not a crouch or it is a spinmeister or both. sent18: that the exocrine is both a kindness and not centromeric is incorrect if it is prokaryotic. sent19: something that is a spinmeister scrabbles EDS or is not a retardant or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the potpie is not a spinmeister.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the potpie is not a spinmeister if the fact that it does abuse surcoat and scrabbles EDS does not hold.

If the potpie does abuse surcoat and scrabbles, it's not a spinmeister.

if the potpie is not a spinmeister that the Guyanese is either not a crouch or a spinmeister or both is not right.

the provider is a millionairess.

sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gels Psophia or it does not husk or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent4: if that that something is not a kind of a millionairess but it is a impenitence hold is not correct it is a kind of a kickback. sent5: the provider does not jell waterleaf. sent6: the ilmenite is not a husk. sent7: if the fact that the berm does not jell Psophia and it does not abuse M3 is not true the provider jell Psophia. sent8: the horn does jell heterocycle and scrabbles raisin. sent9: the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf. sent10: something does scrabble provider but it does not jell Acanthuridae if it is a kickback. sent11: if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent12: something is not a H-bomb and/or it does not tuck monarch if it does scrabble raisin. sent13: if the provider retrains and gels waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent14: something that gels Psophia does not scrabble flamefish and/or is a husk. sent15: the ilmenite is not an abortion if the horn is not a kind of a H-bomb or it does not tuck monarch or both. sent16: that the stair-carpet is not a millionairess but a impenitence is not correct if the provider does not scrabble flamefish. sent17: if the ilmenite is not a kind of an abortion then the fact that the berm is proconsular and it is pantheist hold.

{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the provider is a kind of a millionairess.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the provider is a millionairess. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scrabble flamefish or it husks or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent2: if something is a kind of a pantheist then the fact that it does not jell Psophia and does not abuse M3 is not right. sent3: if either the ilmenite gels Psophia or it does not husk or both it does not scrabble flamefish. sent4: if that that something is not a kind of a millionairess but it is a impenitence hold is not correct it is a kind of a kickback. sent5: the provider does not jell waterleaf. sent6: the ilmenite is not a husk. sent7: if the fact that the berm does not jell Psophia and it does not abuse M3 is not true the provider jell Psophia. sent8: the horn does jell heterocycle and scrabbles raisin. sent9: the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf. sent10: something does scrabble provider but it does not jell Acanthuridae if it is a kickback. sent11: if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent12: something is not a H-bomb and/or it does not tuck monarch if it does scrabble raisin. sent13: if the provider retrains and gels waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess. sent14: something that gels Psophia does not scrabble flamefish and/or is a husk. sent15: the ilmenite is not an abortion if the horn is not a kind of a H-bomb or it does not tuck monarch or both. sent16: that the stair-carpet is not a millionairess but a impenitence is not correct if the provider does not scrabble flamefish. sent17: if the ilmenite is not a kind of an abortion then the fact that the berm is proconsular and it is pantheist hold. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess.

if the provider retrains and does not jell waterleaf it is not a kind of a millionairess.

the provider retrains but it does not jell waterleaf.

the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto.

sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness that the environment is a Veneto is true. sent4: if something is not a kind of a Ni-hard and does jell weekend it does not abuse Bukharin. sent5: if something does not abuse sacrilegiousness and is a Veneto it is daisylike. sent6: if something does not abuse Bukharin it does not fling and does not abuse environment. sent7: if the jointer does jell weekend then that it is not a kind of a Ni-hard and it abuses Bukharin is false. sent8: everything is not daisylike. sent9: something does not abuse environment and does not fling if it does not abuse Bukharin. sent10: the Maltese is not a Paracelsus. sent11: something is a kind of a essonite and it abuses sacrilegiousness if it does not abuse environment. sent12: if that something is not a philatelist or not a Ni-hard or both is correct then it is not a Ni-hard. sent13: if the intercostal gels lionfish then it gels weekend. sent14: the Maltese is not a philatelist and/or it is not a Ni-hard if it is not a Paracelsus. sent15: the diaphone does not jell egress and/or is Orthodox if the babbitt is daisylike. sent16: if the intercostal does jell weekend the Maltese does jell weekend. sent17: if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto. sent18: if the environment abuses sacrilegiousness the babbitt is a Veneto. sent19: if the intercostal does not fling and it does not abuse environment then the Maltese is a essonite.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the diaphone does not jell egress or is not non-Orthodox or both.

(¬{GB}{ea} v {AN}{ea})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the babbitt is not a kind of a Veneto. ; $context$ = sent1: the babbitt is not daisylike and it is not a Veneto if the Maltese abuses sacrilegiousness. sent2: if the Maltese is a essonite the babbitt does not abuse sacrilegiousness but it is a Veneto. sent3: if the babbitt does abuse sacrilegiousness that the environment is a Veneto is true. sent4: if something is not a kind of a Ni-hard and does jell weekend it does not abuse Bukharin. sent5: if something does not abuse sacrilegiousness and is a Veneto it is daisylike. sent6: if something does not abuse Bukharin it does not fling and does not abuse environment. sent7: if the jointer does jell weekend then that it is not a kind of a Ni-hard and it abuses Bukharin is false. sent8: everything is not daisylike. sent9: something does not abuse environment and does not fling if it does not abuse Bukharin. sent10: the Maltese is not a Paracelsus. sent11: something is a kind of a essonite and it abuses sacrilegiousness if it does not abuse environment. sent12: if that something is not a philatelist or not a Ni-hard or both is correct then it is not a Ni-hard. sent13: if the intercostal gels lionfish then it gels weekend. sent14: the Maltese is not a philatelist and/or it is not a Ni-hard if it is not a Paracelsus. sent15: the diaphone does not jell egress and/or is Orthodox if the babbitt is daisylike. sent16: if the intercostal does jell weekend the Maltese does jell weekend. sent17: if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto. sent18: if the environment abuses sacrilegiousness the babbitt is a Veneto. sent19: if the intercostal does not fling and it does not abuse environment then the Maltese is a essonite. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the environment is not daisylike.; int1 -> int2: the environment is not daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both.; sent17 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is not daisylike.

everything is not daisylike.

if the fact that the environment is non-daisylike or it abuses sacrilegiousness or both is right the babbitt is a Veneto.

that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold.

sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and does jell jagged that it does not abuse monoblast is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the mackintosh is not amoebic and it does not abuse Newgate is not true if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent5: the demand does not jell overhead but it gels jagged. sent6: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent7: if something is virological and/or it does not scrabble sprayer then it does not scrabble sprayer. sent8: the fact that something is not bivalve and is not a Lincolnshire is not true if it does abuse weekend. sent9: something that is a Lincolnshire is virological or does not scrabble sprayer or both. sent10: that the demand does not abuse musicianship and is not dramatic is false if the depressive is incontinent. sent11: if the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire that it is a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer is incorrect. sent12: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is wrong. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it does not abuse monoblast is true then the bryanthus is both not incontinent and a noradrenaline. sent14: if something is not undramatic then it does not abuse musicianship and is virological. sent15: the fact that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is not right if the fact that it is not a Lincolnshire is right. sent16: the mackintosh is a Lincolnshire if the fact that the demand does not abuse musicianship but it is undramatic is wrong. sent17: if the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast then the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast. sent18: the fact that the mackintosh is a half-mast but it does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. sent19: the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire. sent20: the bryanthus does abuse weekend. sent21: that that the skydiver is not a kind of a Lincolnshire and is not neoplastic is right is wrong. sent22: if the bryanthus does abuse weekend and is a kind of a half-mast the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the mackintosh is not a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sprayer does not abuse musicianship but it is virological then the mackintosh does abuse weekend. sent2: the cuff is not a half-mast. sent3: if something does not jell overhead and does jell jagged that it does not abuse monoblast is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the mackintosh is not amoebic and it does not abuse Newgate is not true if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent5: the demand does not jell overhead but it gels jagged. sent6: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire. sent7: if something is virological and/or it does not scrabble sprayer then it does not scrabble sprayer. sent8: the fact that something is not bivalve and is not a Lincolnshire is not true if it does abuse weekend. sent9: something that is a Lincolnshire is virological or does not scrabble sprayer or both. sent10: that the demand does not abuse musicianship and is not dramatic is false if the depressive is incontinent. sent11: if the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire that it is a half-mast and does not scrabble sprayer is incorrect. sent12: that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is wrong. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it does not abuse monoblast is true then the bryanthus is both not incontinent and a noradrenaline. sent14: if something is not undramatic then it does not abuse musicianship and is virological. sent15: the fact that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and scrabbles sprayer is not right if the fact that it is not a Lincolnshire is right. sent16: the mackintosh is a Lincolnshire if the fact that the demand does not abuse musicianship but it is undramatic is wrong. sent17: if the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast then the mackintosh is not a kind of a half-mast. sent18: the fact that the mackintosh is a half-mast but it does not scrabble sprayer does not hold. sent19: the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire. sent20: the bryanthus does abuse weekend. sent21: that that the skydiver is not a kind of a Lincolnshire and is not neoplastic is right is wrong. sent22: if the bryanthus does abuse weekend and is a kind of a half-mast the sprayer is not a kind of a half-mast. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire.

that the mackintosh is not a half-mast and it does not scrabble sprayer is not right if it is not a Lincolnshire.

the mackintosh is not a Lincolnshire.

the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs.

sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if the bimorphemicness does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the postdoctoralness does not occur hold if that either the inflection occurs or the structuralness occurs or both does not hold. sent5: the inflection does not occur if that the structuralness happens is correct.

¬{B} -> ¬{A}

sent1: ¬{B} -> {A} sent2: ¬{ET} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} v {B}) sent4: ¬({A} v {B}) -> ¬{IG} sent5: {B} -> ¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the postdoctoral does not occur.

¬{IG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the non-structuralness prevents that the inflection occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inflection occurs if the structuralness does not occur. sent2: that the translationalness does not occur is correct. sent3: that that either the inflection happens or the structuralness occurs or both is not correct if the bimorphemicness does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: the fact that the postdoctoralness does not occur hold if that either the inflection occurs or the structuralness occurs or both does not hold. sent5: the inflection does not occur if that the structuralness happens is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold.

sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lotus does jell geophagy.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum.

If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and is a kind of Ardisia.

the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right.

the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold.

sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lotus does jell geophagy.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lotus does not jell geophagy hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the embankment is not malodorous if the kerchief is not malodorous but a frost. sent2: the fact that the embankment is a Ledum is right. sent3: something does not jell geophagy and it is not a Ledum if it is not malodorous. sent4: if that something gels pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is not right then it does not jell geophagy. sent5: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum. sent6: if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy. sent7: if the embankment does not jell geophagy and is not a kind of a Ledum the lotus jell geophagy. sent8: if something does not scrabble workhouse then it is not malodorous but a frost. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true.; sent6 -> int2: if that that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or is a Ardisia is not true hold then it does not jell geophagy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the lotus does not jell pustule and/or it is a kind of a Ardisia is false if the embankment is a Ledum.

If the embankment is a Ledum, the lotus does not jell and it is a kind of Ardisia.

if that something either does not jell pustule or is a Ardisia or both is incorrect it does not jell geophagy.

the thoracotomy happens.

sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle happens is not incorrect. sent5: the invocation happens. sent6: the working occurs. sent7: the coloration occurs. sent8: that the assault does not occur is prevented by the pallone. sent9: the crutch happens. sent10: that the abusing noon occurs is not wrong if the bisontineness occurs. sent11: the assault occurs. sent12: the abusing discovery occurs. sent13: the Nestorian occurs. sent14: the updraft occurs.

{B}

sent1: {DJ} sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {A} -> {B} sent4: {JA} sent5: {CO} sent6: {DM} sent7: {IR} sent8: {DT} -> {EC} sent9: {HA} sent10: {HJ} -> {I} sent11: {EC} sent12: {GM} sent13: {ER} sent14: {A}

PROVED

PROVED

the thoracotomy does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thoracotomy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Franciscanness happens. sent2: if the fact that the abusing Mojave does not occur is not wrong the thoracotomy does not occur and the updraft does not occur. sent3: that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs. sent4: that the middle happens is not incorrect. sent5: the invocation happens. sent6: the working occurs. sent7: the coloration occurs. sent8: that the assault does not occur is prevented by the pallone. sent9: the crutch happens. sent10: that the abusing noon occurs is not wrong if the bisontineness occurs. sent11: the assault occurs. sent12: the abusing discovery occurs. sent13: the Nestorian occurs. sent14: the updraft occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs.

that the thoracotomy happens is caused by that the updraft occurs.

the updraft occurs.

the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic.

sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent3: that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob. sent4: something does jell probabilism and it does bob if it is not a Cynewulf. sent5: there is something such that it gels probabilism. sent6: the squawbush does not jell probabilism. sent7: if something gels oca then the fact that the prince is a kind of a kamikaze or it is not photoemissive or both is not true. sent8: the follow-up is a kind of a Skuld. sent9: that either the squawbush is a kind of a bob or it does not jell founder or both is false. sent10: if the fact that the rawhide is not laryngeal and it is non-buccal is not correct then it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent11: something is a bob. sent12: the fact that the Adams gels probabilism and/or does not tuck murre is incorrect. sent13: the squawbush does not jell probabilism if something does bob. sent14: the cock-a-leekie scrabbles ulcer if the follow-up is a characterization. sent15: something is paralytic. sent16: the follow-up is a characterization if it is a Skuld.

({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (¬{E}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): {JB}x -> ¬({II}{at} v ¬{HA}{at}) sent8: {L}{d} sent9: ¬({A}{a} v ¬{DL}{a}) sent10: ¬(¬{I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> ¬{G}{b} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: ¬({B}{p} v ¬{CD}{p}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: {K}{d} -> {J}{c} sent15: (Ex): {C}x sent16: {L}{d} -> {K}{d}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is not paralytic hold.

({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the squawbush gels probabilism and/or it is non-paralytic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rawhide does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance that the squawbush is not a Cynewulf is not wrong. sent2: something does not jell hydrofluorocarbon and/or is not a conveyance if it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent3: that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob. sent4: something does jell probabilism and it does bob if it is not a Cynewulf. sent5: there is something such that it gels probabilism. sent6: the squawbush does not jell probabilism. sent7: if something gels oca then the fact that the prince is a kind of a kamikaze or it is not photoemissive or both is not true. sent8: the follow-up is a kind of a Skuld. sent9: that either the squawbush is a kind of a bob or it does not jell founder or both is false. sent10: if the fact that the rawhide is not laryngeal and it is non-buccal is not correct then it is not a kind of a linoleum. sent11: something is a bob. sent12: the fact that the Adams gels probabilism and/or does not tuck murre is incorrect. sent13: the squawbush does not jell probabilism if something does bob. sent14: the cock-a-leekie scrabbles ulcer if the follow-up is a characterization. sent15: something is paralytic. sent16: the follow-up is a characterization if it is a Skuld. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a bob.

something is a bob.

that either the squawbush gels probabilism or it is not paralytic or both does not hold if there is something such that it is a bob.

the sweep does not jell gloved.

sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sweep gels gloved.

{F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not subhuman.

There is something that is not subhuman.

if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong.

the sweep does not jell gloved.

sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sweep gels gloved.

{F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not subhuman.

There is a thing that is not subhuman.

if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong.

the sweep does not jell gloved.

sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sweep gels gloved.

{F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sweep does not jell gloved. ; $context$ = sent1: the sweep does not jell gloved if the Centre is ascensional and it is a kind of a furosemide. sent2: the fact that the provider is a kind of a loop but it is not a kind of a stickball does not hold if there are non-subhuman things. sent3: the sweep is a furosemide if the fact that the fact that the Centre does not jell gloved and it is not a life-style is correct is not true. sent4: if that the provider is not a loop and is not a stickball does not hold the fact that the Centre is ascensional is not wrong. sent5: if the Centre is a kind of a federation and is a life-style then it is a Welsh. sent6: the fact that the provider loops but it is not a stickball is false. sent7: if the fact that something is not subhuman and it is not a loop is false it does jell gloved. sent8: the Centre is not a life-style. sent9: the fact that the provider is not a loop and is a stickball is not correct. sent10: if there are non-subhuman things the fact that the provider is not a loop and not a stickball is wrong. sent11: there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent12: the amaranth intrigues and is a kind of a life-style. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is subhuman is right. sent14: something is a furosemide if it is Welsh. sent15: if the sweep gels gloved and is not a furosemide it is a stickball. sent16: the Centre is a federation that is not a kind of a life-style. sent17: that the provider is both not a loop and a stickball is wrong if there exists something such that it is not subhuman. sent18: that something is not subhuman and it does not loop is incorrect if it is a stickball. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not subhuman.

There is something like that that is not subhuman.

something is a furosemide if it is Welsh.

the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold.

sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert.

({A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {EA}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {E}x sent4: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{IB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ({CG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent8: (Ex): {FK}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{DE}x) -> {BO}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent16: (Ex): {AA}x sent17: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent18: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: (Ex): ({ER}x & ¬{IE}x) sent20: (x): ({EQ}x & ¬{A}x) -> {BU}{a} sent21: {AA}{a} sent22: (x): ({B}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {CK}{eu}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exchanger does scrabble porker and it is transdermal is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu.

There is something that does not scrabble Danu.

if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker.

the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold.

sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert.

({A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {EA}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {E}x sent4: (Ex): ({FQ}x & ¬{IB}x) sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): ({CG}x & ¬{EJ}x) sent8: (Ex): {FK}x sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{DE}x) -> {BO}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({B}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent16: (Ex): {AA}x sent17: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent18: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: (Ex): ({ER}x & ¬{IE}x) sent20: (x): ({EQ}x & ¬{A}x) -> {BU}{a} sent21: {AA}{a} sent22: (x): ({B}x & ¬{CA}x) -> {CK}{eu}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exchanger does scrabble porker and it is transdermal is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exchanger scrabbles porker and it is not non-transdermal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a Gothic. sent2: the exchanger is transdermal. sent3: there exists something such that that it is non-civilian does not hold. sent4: something is splintery and not anthropological. sent5: if something that is calcic does not scrabble Danu then the exchanger does scrabble porker. sent6: if that something is not a one-hundredth but it does scrabble toucanet is wrong then the fact that it is a one-hundredth is not incorrect. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a Acaridae that does not scrabble Offertory. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles heliosphere hold. sent9: something does scrabble porker. sent10: something does not scrabble Danu. sent11: something is a kind of calcic thing that scrabbles Danu. sent12: there is something such that it scrabbles porker and is not transdermal. sent13: the exchanger is splenic if something is calcic thing that does not abuse dressing. sent14: there is something such that it is transdermal and it does scrabble porker. sent15: something is not non-substantival but it does not scrabble porker if it is a one-hundredth. sent16: there exists something such that it is not non-calcic. sent17: something is transdermal but it does not scrabble porker. sent18: something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu. sent19: that something is corrigible but it does not scrabble strip hold. sent20: the fact that if there is something such that it is thalassic and does not scrabble porker the exchanger is flowerless is not incorrect. sent21: that the exchanger is calcic is correct. sent22: the towpath is a kind of a strangeness if a transdermal thing does not avert. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent5 -> int1: the exchanger does scrabble porker.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of calcic thing that does not scrabble Danu.

There is something that doesn't scrabble Danu.

the exchanger is transdermal.

the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs.

sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs.

If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness happens, it's incorrect.

that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs.

the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs.

sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the condonation does not occur and the cyclopeanness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inedibleness occurs if the scrabbling cockhorse does not occur. sent2: that the unknownness does not occur prevents that the parimutuel occurs. sent3: that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens does not hold.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the parimutuel happens.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the parimutuel does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the condonation does not occur but the cyclopeanness happens is incorrect the parimutuel occurs.

If the condonation doesn't happen but the cyclopeanness does, it's incorrect.

that that the unknown occurs is correct does not hold.

the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness.

sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. sent4: if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. sent5: if the squawbush is a rhinovirus but it does not abuse squawbush it does not ash. sent6: the furfural is not unoriginal. sent7: if something is not an ash the fact that it is a foster-daughter that is a joylessness is incorrect. sent8: something is not an ash but it is a joylessness if it is not a foster-daughter.

{A}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the squawbush is not a joylessness is not incorrect.

¬{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the squawbush is a kind of a joylessness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the furfural is both phenomenal and unoriginal the decline ashes. sent2: if the fact that something is a foster-daughter and is a kind of a joylessness is false it is not a joylessness. sent3: the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal. sent4: if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash. sent5: if the squawbush is a rhinovirus but it does not abuse squawbush it does not ash. sent6: the furfural is not unoriginal. sent7: if something is not an ash the fact that it is a foster-daughter that is a joylessness is incorrect. sent8: something is not an ash but it is a joylessness if it is not a foster-daughter. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash.

if the furfural is phenomenal but it is not unoriginal the decline is an ash.

the furfural is phenomenal and is not unoriginal.

the nones occurs.

sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right.

{A}

sent1: ¬{DN} -> ¬{FS} sent2: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{T}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: ¬{EF} sent8: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{IE}) -> ¬{BO} sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{IF} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{E} sent15: ¬(¬{FT} v ¬{EJ}) -> ¬{CP} sent16: ¬{DK} sent17: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the nones happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nones occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right.

If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen.

that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct.

the nones occurs.

sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right.

{A}

sent1: ¬{DN} -> ¬{FS} sent2: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{T}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: ¬{EF} sent8: ¬(¬{IJ} v ¬{IE}) -> ¬{BO} sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} v ¬{E}) sent12: ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{IF} sent14: (¬{F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{E} sent15: ¬(¬{FT} v ¬{EJ}) -> ¬{CP} sent16: ¬{DK} sent17: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the nones happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nones occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scrabbling pizzicato does not occur then the mapping does not occur. sent2: the fact that either the Terpsichore does not occur or the articularness does not occur or both is incorrect. sent3: if that the weightlessness does not occur is right then the fact that the theatricalness but not the nones occurs is incorrect. sent4: if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur. sent5: that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not correct. sent6: the shuttingness occurs. sent7: the variolation does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the shirking does not occur and/or the reshuffle does not occur does not hold then the Britannicness does not occur. sent9: the drinking does not occur and the weightlessness does not occur if that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur is true. sent10: the theatricalness does not occur if that either the shuttingness occurs or the gelling Laos does not occur or both does not hold. sent11: either the abusing murre does not occur or the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur or both if that the probation does not occur hold. sent12: the fact that the tucking in-joke does not occur hold. sent13: the nonreticulateness does not occur. sent14: the abusing Oppenheimer is prevented by that the abusing murre does not occur and/or that the abusing Oppenheimer does not occur. sent15: the smacker does not occur if that the conversion does not occur and/or the Exodus does not occur is not true. sent16: the Education does not occur. sent17: the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent5 -> int1: the theatrical does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the theatricalness does not occur if that the shuttingness does not occur or the gelling Laos does not occur or both is not right.

If the shuttingness doesn't happen or the gelling Laos doesn't happen, the theatricalness doesn't happen.

if the theatrical does not occur then the nones does not occur.

the analysand does fire but it is not a luger.

sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a luger is true. sent4: that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction. sent5: that the raider is a luger and is not a fire does not hold if there is something such that it is a thermojunction. sent6: the raider is a thermojunction. sent7: the fact that the analysand is a fire and a luger is false. sent8: the fact that the analysand is a kind of a fire and it is a luger is not right if there is something such that it is a kind of a thermojunction.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {C}{jj} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} sent7: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the analysand is a fire that is not a luger.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the analysand does fire but it is not a luger. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the raider is a kind of a fire that does not bond is incorrect. sent2: the fact that something is a fire but it is not a luger is true if the fact that it is a thermojunction is correct. sent3: that the Riff is a kind of a luger is true. sent4: that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction. sent5: that the raider is a luger and is not a fire does not hold if there is something such that it is a thermojunction. sent6: the raider is a thermojunction. sent7: the fact that the analysand is a fire and a luger is false. sent8: the fact that the analysand is a kind of a fire and it is a luger is not right if there is something such that it is a kind of a thermojunction. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: something is a thermojunction.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the raider is a thermojunction.

the raider is a thermojunction.

that that the fact that the analysand is a fire but it is not a luger is not false is not right hold if there exists something such that it is a thermojunction.

the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire.

sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali.

If it's not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work.

the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.

the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire.

sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali.

The serviceman is not functional if he is not a Bengali.

if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false.

the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire.

sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: ({D}{a} v ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: {BR}{db} -> {BE}{db} sent3: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{Q}{a} sent6: ¬{E}{hu} sent7: ¬{E}{go} sent8: ¬{C}{co} sent9: (¬{CI}{a} & {FS}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{hi} sent11: ({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{FE}{a} sent13: ({E}{a} v ¬{FQ}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{gh} sent15: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the serviceman is not operable but it is a bonfire. ; $context$ = sent1: either the serviceman is an accounting or it is not a uplink or both. sent2: if the Angolese is a parade it does tuck Irish. sent3: if the serviceman accounts and/or is not a viewers that it is a bonfire is not false. sent4: the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali. sent5: the serviceman is not a smegma. sent6: the Irish is not a kind of a viewers. sent7: the brass is not a viewers. sent8: the K.E. is not a bonfire. sent9: the serviceman does not abuse unsuitability and is a kind of a philadelphus. sent10: the panel is not operable. sent11: the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers. sent12: the serviceman is not a heliograph. sent13: the serviceman is a viewers or it is not diluvian or both. sent14: the Kenyan is not a kind of a Bengali. sent15: the serviceman is not a kind of a Bengali. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the serviceman is not operable.; sent3 & sent11 -> int2: the serviceman is a bonfire.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the serviceman is not operable if it is not a Bengali.

If it is not a Bengali, the serviceman won't work.

the serviceman accounts and/or it is not a kind of a viewers.

the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false.

sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent4: that the SNP is gymnosophical is not incorrect if the exonuclease is not non-exponential. sent5: there is something such that it is a anil. sent6: there is something such that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil. sent7: the nitrofurantoin does not jell Segway. sent8: the SNP does not rejoice if there exists something such that that it is Palladian and/or it is not a symbology is not true. sent9: there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. sent10: if the exonuclease is not a lint the fact that it is an exponential that is a toad-in-the-hole hold. sent11: something is leafy if it is algorithmic.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the suspension does not scrabble Dachau.

¬{A}{co}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the SNP does scrabble Dachau is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is gymnosophical is algorithmic. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is a anil does not hold the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau. sent4: that the SNP is gymnosophical is not incorrect if the exonuclease is not non-exponential. sent5: there is something such that it is a anil. sent6: there is something such that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil. sent7: the nitrofurantoin does not jell Segway. sent8: the SNP does not rejoice if there exists something such that that it is Palladian and/or it is not a symbology is not true. sent9: there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect. sent10: if the exonuclease is not a lint the fact that it is an exponential that is a toad-in-the-hole hold. sent11: something is leafy if it is algorithmic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect.

there exists something such that that it is cheerful or not a anil or both is incorrect.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is cheerful and/or it is not a anil is false the SNP does not scrabble Dachau.

the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista.

sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrabbles Mutinus. sent5: if something is both not impermeable and a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent6: everything abuses Reich. sent7: if the candle does scrabble Mutinus then the dextrin is a kind of impermeable a delinquent. sent8: if something scrabbles Mutinus and does not abuse Reich then it is a fascista. sent9: the dextrin is Sinhala. sent10: if the dextrin does scrabble Mutinus then the candle is not a fascista but it is not impermeable. sent11: the dextrin is not permeable. sent12: the dextrin is not fascista if it is both permeable and a delinquent. sent13: if the candle is not fascista but it does scrabble Mutinus then it is not permeable. sent14: if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent15: the dextrin gels soldiering if it is a Orleanism. sent16: something that is Sinhala is a Orleanism and/or not a library. sent17: that the slag does not abuse decorator is correct if it is not afebrile and it is fortunate.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: (¬{EU}{df} & {FL}{df}) sent2: {G}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): {A}x sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {E}x sent9: {J}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: ¬{D}{b} sent12: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent13: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {I}{b} -> {G}{b} sent16: (x): {J}x -> ({I}x v ¬{H}x) sent17: (¬{CF}{aa} & {FU}{aa}) -> ¬{AU}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dextrin is fascista.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrin is not a kind of a fascista. ; $context$ = sent1: the habitat is non-Colombian thing that scrabbles registered. sent2: that the dextrin is permeable and not a Shawn is not right if it does jell soldiering. sent3: the candle abuses Reich. sent4: the dextrin is not permeable if the candle scrabbles Mutinus. sent5: if something is both not impermeable and a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent6: everything abuses Reich. sent7: if the candle does scrabble Mutinus then the dextrin is a kind of impermeable a delinquent. sent8: if something scrabbles Mutinus and does not abuse Reich then it is a fascista. sent9: the dextrin is Sinhala. sent10: if the dextrin does scrabble Mutinus then the candle is not a fascista but it is not impermeable. sent11: the dextrin is not permeable. sent12: the dextrin is not fascista if it is both permeable and a delinquent. sent13: if the candle is not fascista but it does scrabble Mutinus then it is not permeable. sent14: if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista. sent15: the dextrin gels soldiering if it is a Orleanism. sent16: something that is Sinhala is a Orleanism and/or not a library. sent17: that the slag does not abuse decorator is correct if it is not afebrile and it is fortunate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything abuses Reich.

everything abuses Reich.

if something that is not permeable is a delinquent then it is not a fascista.

the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth.

sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong.

¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe.

the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist.

the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth.

sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong.

¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

If it is not minimalist, the correspondent consorts with Szilard and does not breathe.

if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.

the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth.

sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

(¬{D}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

if that the bondwoman is not a Poecilocapsus is not wrong the fact that it is both vesicular and not a pollinium is wrong.

¬{B}{c} -> ¬({EC}{c} & ¬{DU}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a kind of a vermouth. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth. sent2: if something is not a Poecilocapsus the fact that it is vesicular and it is not a pollinium is incorrect. sent3: the correspondent is not a kind of a minimalist. sent4: if the fact that the correspondent consorts Szilard but it does not breathe is not right then the bister is not a Poecilocapsus. sent5: that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the correspondent does consort Szilard and does not breathe is false.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the bister is not a Poecilocapsus.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe does not hold if it is not minimalist.

If it's not minimalist, the correspondent consorts Szilard and does not breathe.

if the bister is not a Poecilocapsus the bondwoman is not a champagne and is not a vermouth.

the elastic happens.

sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow does not occur the outing does not occur. sent4: that the down-bow does not occur but the origin occurs is triggered by that the challenge happens. sent5: if the allurement occurs that the considering zinfandel happens but the soiling does not occur is wrong. sent6: the warring does not occur or the sentimentalizing does not occur or both. sent7: that the stunting Apia does not occur is prevented by that the telephotography happens. sent8: either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. sent9: if the ratification does not occur the unalterableness occurs and the allurement happens. sent10: the allurement occurs or the considering zinfandel does not occur or both. sent11: the ratification does not occur if the linebacker happens. sent12: if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true. sent13: the vegetation occurs. sent14: if the unalterableness occurs then the elasticness happens. sent15: if that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the linebacker happens hold. sent16: if the allurement does not occur the unalterableness happens. sent17: the challenge happens and the commingling happens if the fact that the consorting bullfighter does not occur is not wrong. sent18: the blowout occurs. sent19: if the acceleration happens then the hysterectomy happens. sent20: that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect if the outingness does not occur.

{E}

sent1: (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{O} sent2: ¬{R} -> (¬{P} & ¬{Q}) sent3: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent4: {M} -> (¬{K} & {L}) sent5: {C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent6: (¬{EG} v ¬{EJ}) sent7: {HB} -> {DO} sent8: (¬{C} v ¬{B}) -> {D} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: ({C} v ¬{B}) sent11: {G} -> ¬{F} sent12: {IB} -> {IO} sent13: {FO} sent14: {D} -> {E} sent15: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H}) -> {G} sent16: ¬{C} -> {D} sent17: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent18: {CS} sent19: {BF} -> {DA} sent20: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{H})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the elastic does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the elastic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur then the consorting bullfighter does not occur. sent2: that the Parisianness does not occur causes that the relevantness does not occur and the exploiting does not occur. sent3: if the down-bow does not occur the outing does not occur. sent4: that the down-bow does not occur but the origin occurs is triggered by that the challenge happens. sent5: if the allurement occurs that the considering zinfandel happens but the soiling does not occur is wrong. sent6: the warring does not occur or the sentimentalizing does not occur or both. sent7: that the stunting Apia does not occur is prevented by that the telephotography happens. sent8: either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur. sent9: if the ratification does not occur the unalterableness occurs and the allurement happens. sent10: the allurement occurs or the considering zinfandel does not occur or both. sent11: the ratification does not occur if the linebacker happens. sent12: if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true. sent13: the vegetation occurs. sent14: if the unalterableness occurs then the elasticness happens. sent15: if that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect then the fact that the linebacker happens hold. sent16: if the allurement does not occur the unalterableness happens. sent17: the challenge happens and the commingling happens if the fact that the consorting bullfighter does not occur is not wrong. sent18: the blowout occurs. sent19: if the acceleration happens then the hysterectomy happens. sent20: that the pull-up does not occur and the plagiarizing does not occur is incorrect if the outingness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur.

either that the allurement does not occur or that the considering zinfandel does not occur or both prevents that the unalterableness does not occur.

if the bismuthicness occurs then that the pas occurs is true.

the gum occurs.

sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not the gum but the surveying happens. sent4: the fact that the cachecticness happens is not wrong. sent5: the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. sent6: the overthrow happens. sent7: that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs. sent8: the fact that that the gumming does not occur brings about that the surveying happens or the feminizing Copland does not occur or both is true.

{C}

sent1: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent3: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & {A}) sent4: {FU} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {BS} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: ¬{C} -> ({A} v ¬{B})

PROVED

PROVED

the gum does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gum occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the gum does not occur if that the gum occurs but the considering nympholepsy does not occur is wrong. sent2: the feminizing Copland does not occur and the considering nympholepsy does not occur if the path occurs. sent3: if the feminizing Copland does not occur not the gum but the surveying happens. sent4: the fact that the cachecticness happens is not wrong. sent5: the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs. sent6: the overthrow happens. sent7: that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs. sent8: the fact that that the gumming does not occur brings about that the surveying happens or the feminizing Copland does not occur or both is true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the feminizing Copland occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs.

the surveying and the feminizing Copland occurs.

that the gumming happens is triggered by that the feminizing Copland occurs.

the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true.

sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mitoticness occurs and the cardinalship happens. sent4: that both the implicationalness and the full-timeness happens is brought about by the conditionalness. sent5: that the preening does not occur is brought about by that the implicationalness happens and the consorting remuda occurs. sent6: the unconditionalness does not occur if the whiting does not occur and the sashay does not occur. sent7: the cardinalship occurs.

¬({A} & {B})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the cardinalship happens and the preening occurs does not hold.

¬({A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the preening happens. sent2: that the cardinalship occurs and the preening occurs is not right if that the implicationalness does not occur hold. sent3: if the fact that the preening does not occur hold the mitoticness occurs and the cardinalship happens. sent4: that both the implicationalness and the full-timeness happens is brought about by the conditionalness. sent5: that the preening does not occur is brought about by that the implicationalness happens and the consorting remuda occurs. sent6: the unconditionalness does not occur if the whiting does not occur and the sashay does not occur. sent7: the cardinalship occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the cardinalship occurs.

the cardinalship occurs.

the preening happens.

the Chickasaw is not therapeutics.

sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent3: if something bootlegs then it is non-therapeutics. sent4: something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is a tam if it is not nebulous. sent5: the Chickasaw is etiological and/or does stunt bantering. sent6: if the Chickasaw does bootleg then it is not therapeutics. sent7: if the fact that the subcontractor is therapeutics hold the Chickasaw is not etiological but it is a Florentine. sent8: the Chickasaw is etiological. sent9: if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics. sent10: the flight is Florentine if the Chickasaw is not etiological and is a Florentine. sent11: that the Chickasaw is not a kind of a bootleg and is not therapeutics is wrong if it is not etiological.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the flight is a kind of a bootleg and/or is a Florentine.

({A}{hm} v {CF}{hm})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Chickasaw is not therapeutics. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is therapeutics if the fact that it is not a bootleg and it is therapeutics is not true is correct. sent2: the subcontractor is not nebulous if the fact that the minaret is robotic and is not a kind of a thumbtack is not correct. sent3: if something bootlegs then it is non-therapeutics. sent4: something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is a tam if it is not nebulous. sent5: the Chickasaw is etiological and/or does stunt bantering. sent6: if the Chickasaw does bootleg then it is not therapeutics. sent7: if the fact that the subcontractor is therapeutics hold the Chickasaw is not etiological but it is a Florentine. sent8: the Chickasaw is etiological. sent9: if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics. sent10: the flight is Florentine if the Chickasaw is not etiological and is a Florentine. sent11: that the Chickasaw is not a kind of a bootleg and is not therapeutics is wrong if it is not etiological. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: either the Chickasaw does bootleg or it is etiological or both.; sent9 -> int2: the Chickasaw is not therapeutics if either it is a bootleg or it is etiological or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Chickasaw is etiological.

the Chickasaw is etiological.

if something is a kind of a bootleg and/or it is etiological it is non-therapeutics.

the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness.

sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a salutatorian is wrong. sent4: that the tern is cheliceral and it is a salutatorian is wrong. sent5: that the adulteress is not Peloponnesian if the adulteress is a march is not false. sent6: the stomach is not a kind of a Coerebidae if a gang is not a put-put. sent7: the fact that the tern does encourage and/or it is not a kind of a march is false if the pediatrician considers chloroquine. sent8: if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. sent9: the tern is not a copartner. sent10: if the Democrat does consider hypo the pediatrician does consider hypo. sent11: something considers chloroquine if it does consider hypo. sent12: everything does not consort Sternotherus. sent13: everything is not a Coerebidae. sent14: if something is not a Coerebidae and it does not consort Sternotherus then it does not consider townie. sent15: the perigee is not a kind of a roadworthiness if there is something such that that it encourages and/or it is not a kind of a march is not correct. sent16: the tern encourages. sent17: the pediatrician does not encourage if the fact that it does not consider hypo and it does consider chloroquine is not right. sent18: something does not feminize Sternotherus but it is fiscal if it is not a kind of a roadworthiness.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the tern is not a march but it is a roadworthiness does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tern is not a march and is a kind of a roadworthiness. ; $context$ = sent1: something considers hypo if it does consider townie. sent2: there exists something such that it gangs and it is not a kind of a put-put. sent3: the tern is not a kind of a march if that it is cheliceral thing that is not a salutatorian is wrong. sent4: that the tern is cheliceral and it is a salutatorian is wrong. sent5: that the adulteress is not Peloponnesian if the adulteress is a march is not false. sent6: the stomach is not a kind of a Coerebidae if a gang is not a put-put. sent7: the fact that the tern does encourage and/or it is not a kind of a march is false if the pediatrician considers chloroquine. sent8: if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness. sent9: the tern is not a copartner. sent10: if the Democrat does consider hypo the pediatrician does consider hypo. sent11: something considers chloroquine if it does consider hypo. sent12: everything does not consort Sternotherus. sent13: everything is not a Coerebidae. sent14: if something is not a Coerebidae and it does not consort Sternotherus then it does not consider townie. sent15: the perigee is not a kind of a roadworthiness if there is something such that that it encourages and/or it is not a kind of a march is not correct. sent16: the tern encourages. sent17: the pediatrician does not encourage if the fact that it does not consider hypo and it does consider chloroquine is not right. sent18: something does not feminize Sternotherus but it is fiscal if it is not a kind of a roadworthiness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness.

if the tern encourages then it is a roadworthiness.

the tern encourages.

that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong.

sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: {CI}{gk} -> (¬{BH}{gk} v ¬{AB}{gk}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal.

The indapamide is either a cat or a private animal.

the indapamide is dorsal.

that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong.

sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: {CI}{gk} -> (¬{BH}{gk} v ¬{AB}{gk}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the indapamide is not precordial is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sgraffito feminizes future then it does not consort capacitance and/or it is not private. sent2: something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private. sent3: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal. sent4: the indapamide is dorsal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both.; sent2 -> int2: if either the indapamide is not a kind of a cat or it is not private or both it is precordial.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the indapamide is not a cat or it is not a private or both if it is dorsal.

The indapamide is either a private or a cat.

something is precordial if it does not cat and/or is not a private.

the caboose is not a effeminacy.

sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fetter is immediate and it is minor.

({B}{fs} & {S}{fs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caboose is not a effeminacy. ; $context$ = sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate.

The fergusonite is immediate.

if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics.

the caboose is not a effeminacy.

sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fetter is immediate and it is minor.

({B}{fs} & {S}{fs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caboose is not a effeminacy. ; $context$ = sent1: either the allspice is a Arlington or it is agreeable or both if it is not a Caligula. sent2: the fergusonite is skeletal. sent3: that the fact that the allspice does not feminize Buffalo and is a kind of a horizontality is incorrect is not wrong. sent4: the fact that the allspice is not a Caligula is correct if the fact that it does not feminize Buffalo and is a horizontality is not right. sent5: the fergusonite is a bodega. sent6: the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent7: if the fergusonite is immediate the wheeze is macrobiotics. sent8: the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate. sent9: if the fergusonite is macrobiotics the wheeze is immediate. sent10: the fergusonite is macrobiotics if the wheeze is immediate. sent11: that something is a effeminacy or immediate or both is wrong if it is not skeletal. sent12: something is skeletal and it is immediate if it is not a effeminacy. sent13: the fact that the caboose is a gravy hold. sent14: the fact that the organelle is immediate is not false. sent15: the caboose is desirous. sent16: the cygnet is not Episcopal if something is a kind of a Arlington and/or is agreeable. sent17: if the fergusonite is both skeletal and not a effeminacy then the caboose is not a effeminacy. sent18: if that the fergusonite is a effeminacy and/or it is immediate does not hold then the fact that the caboose is not a effeminacy is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fergusonite is immediate.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the wheeze is macrobiotics.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fergusonite is not non-skeletal but immediate.

The fergusonite is immediate and non-skeletal.

the caboose is a kind of a effeminacy if the wheeze is macrobiotics.

the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false.

sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the consolidation happens then the fact that not the label but the incompatibleness occurs is not right. sent4: if the parking happens then the fact that the stablingness happens and the looping happens is not correct. sent5: if the consorting Gnosticism happens then the fact that not the Venetianness but the pause occurs does not hold. sent6: if the vandalism happens then that the incompatibleness does not occur but the consorting Gnosticism occurs is not true. sent7: that the stunting probate does not occur results in that the spoiling does not occur and the scrubbing occurs. sent8: the ornithologicalness occurs. sent9: that the spoiling does not occur leads to that not the superposition but the elegiacness occurs. sent10: if the parking does not occur then that the circumvention does not occur and the lobectomy happens does not hold. sent11: that the superposition does not occur causes that the relief occurs and the smash occurs. sent12: that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. sent13: that the immunohistochemistry occurs and the autogamy occurs is triggered by that the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent14: if the relief happens then the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent15: that the stabling and the loop happens is not right. sent16: the fact that the gyralness does not occur and the explicableness occurs is wrong if the rigging occurs. sent17: the stunting probate does not occur if the fact that not the wholesomeness but the messaging happens is not true. sent18: the parking occurs. sent19: if the autogamy occurs then the parking does not occur and the Freudianness does not occur. sent20: if that the parking or the non-Freudianness or both happens is false then the stabling does not occur. sent21: if the smokelessness does not occur then that both the non-wholesomeness and the messaging occurs is not right.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: {EL} -> ¬(¬{GB} & {HI}) sent2: ¬(¬{HT} & {DF}) sent3: {GO} -> ¬(¬{GQ} & {U}) sent4: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent5: {HI} -> ¬(¬{IO} & {GJ}) sent6: {AG} -> ¬(¬{U} & {HI}) sent7: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent8: {HE} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{BK} & {CF}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent12: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent13: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent14: {F} -> ¬{E} sent15: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent16: {AM} -> ¬(¬{JB} & {HH}) sent17: ¬(¬{M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent18: {A} sent19: {C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent20: ¬({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{AA} sent21: ¬{O} -> ¬(¬{M} & {N})

PROVED

PROVED

both the non-stablingness and the looping occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-stablingness and the loop occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the using occurs that the stunting rya does not occur and the consorting Gnosticism happens is incorrect. sent2: the fact that the feminizing WTV does not occur and the vocal happens does not hold. sent3: if the consolidation happens then the fact that not the label but the incompatibleness occurs is not right. sent4: if the parking happens then the fact that the stablingness happens and the looping happens is not correct. sent5: if the consorting Gnosticism happens then the fact that not the Venetianness but the pause occurs does not hold. sent6: if the vandalism happens then that the incompatibleness does not occur but the consorting Gnosticism occurs is not true. sent7: that the stunting probate does not occur results in that the spoiling does not occur and the scrubbing occurs. sent8: the ornithologicalness occurs. sent9: that the spoiling does not occur leads to that not the superposition but the elegiacness occurs. sent10: if the parking does not occur then that the circumvention does not occur and the lobectomy happens does not hold. sent11: that the superposition does not occur causes that the relief occurs and the smash occurs. sent12: that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens. sent13: that the immunohistochemistry occurs and the autogamy occurs is triggered by that the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent14: if the relief happens then the feminizing chinked does not occur. sent15: that the stabling and the loop happens is not right. sent16: the fact that the gyralness does not occur and the explicableness occurs is wrong if the rigging occurs. sent17: the stunting probate does not occur if the fact that not the wholesomeness but the messaging happens is not true. sent18: the parking occurs. sent19: if the autogamy occurs then the parking does not occur and the Freudianness does not occur. sent20: if that the parking or the non-Freudianness or both happens is false then the stabling does not occur. sent21: if the smokelessness does not occur then that both the non-wholesomeness and the messaging occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens.

that both the non-stablingness and the looping happens is not true if the parking happens.

the parking occurs.

the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin.

sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {IA}{aa} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {DP}x sent11: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({GH}{aa} & ¬{DS}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{GK}x -> ¬({JJ}{aa} & ¬{S}{aa}) sent13: ¬({BQ}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {HA}x sent15: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the VLDL is a siskin and does not stunt loaf does not hold.

¬({B}{bj} & ¬{J}{bj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin.

If that is porcine, but not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin.

something is not a murmur.

the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin.

sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {IA}{aa} sent4: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{J}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {DP}x sent11: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({GH}{aa} & ¬{DS}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{GK}x -> ¬({JJ}{aa} & ¬{S}{aa}) sent13: ¬({BQ}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {HA}x sent15: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the VLDL is a siskin and does not stunt loaf does not hold.

¬({B}{bj} & ¬{J}{bj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Czechoslovakian is not a siskin. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a banner and it stunts Gospel if it does not feminize lowland. sent2: if there is something such that it does not murmur then that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and is a kind of an elation is false. sent3: that the Czechoslovakian is journalistic is right. sent4: something is not a murmur and it is not a siskin if it is a banner. sent5: that something is a siskin and does not stunt loaf is wrong if it is not a murmur. sent6: something is not a murmur. sent7: the Czechoslovakian is a siskin if it is a kind of an elation. sent8: that the Czechoslovakian is porcine and it is an elation is not right. sent9: if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin. sent10: something feminizes prematureness. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not porcine then that the Czechoslovakian does consort sandal but it is not a Tandy does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is not a gooseberry hold then the fact that the Czechoslovakian is both a entelechy and not consonantal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is tellurian but it is not a kind of a siskin is not correct. sent14: there is something such that that it is mutable is not false. sent15: something that is a kind of an elation is a siskin. sent16: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect then it is a siskin.; sent6 & sent16 -> int2: the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not an elation is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is porcine but it is not an elation is not correct then it is a kind of a siskin.

If that is porcine, but it is not an elation, then it is a kind of Siskin.

the fact that the Czechoslovakian is porcine but it is not a kind of an elation is not true if there is something such that it is not a murmur.

the unmilitariness happens.

sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the consorting narrator occurs is brought about by that the relation does not occur. sent5: the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. sent6: the consorting coverage happens. sent7: the northernness does not occur if the consorting spellbinder occurs and the conclusiveness occurs. sent8: that the consorting coverage does not occur and the renovation occurs causes the titration. sent9: the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur if the branched occurs. sent10: both the curing and the nobleness happens. sent11: that the insaneness does not occur and the overexertion does not occur is triggered by that the original does not occur. sent12: if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs. sent13: the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur if the overexertion does not occur. sent14: if the northernness does not occur and the feminizing khoum does not occur then that the radiopaqueness happens is true. sent15: if the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur then the original does not occur. sent16: the stunting scattered occurs. sent17: that the unmilitariness happens is prevented by that the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur. sent18: both the nay and the controlling happens. sent19: the fact that the overexertion does not occur and the unmilitariness occurs does not hold if the insaneness does not occur. sent20: the fact that the aeroliticness happens and the relation happens is right.

{C}

sent1: ({FK} & {HN}) sent2: {BA} sent3: {M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{K}) sent4: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {A} sent7: ({Q} & {P}) -> ¬{N} sent8: (¬{A} & {B}) -> {AS} sent9: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({GH} & {AO}) sent11: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent12: {B} -> {C} sent13: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent14: (¬{N} & ¬{O}) -> {M} sent15: (¬{G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent16: {CF} sent17: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent18: ({BL} & {HF}) sent19: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent20: ({FN} & {K})

PROVED

PROVED

the unmilitariness does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unmilitariness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lowercaseness and the feminizing keystroke occurs. sent2: the stunting foothold occurs. sent3: that the radiopaqueness occurs results in that the nonobservance does not occur and the relation does not occur. sent4: that the branching occurs and the consorting narrator occurs is brought about by that the relation does not occur. sent5: the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens. sent6: the consorting coverage happens. sent7: the northernness does not occur if the consorting spellbinder occurs and the conclusiveness occurs. sent8: that the consorting coverage does not occur and the renovation occurs causes the titration. sent9: the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur if the branched occurs. sent10: both the curing and the nobleness happens. sent11: that the insaneness does not occur and the overexertion does not occur is triggered by that the original does not occur. sent12: if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs. sent13: the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur if the overexertion does not occur. sent14: if the northernness does not occur and the feminizing khoum does not occur then that the radiopaqueness happens is true. sent15: if the preoccupancy does not occur and the Danish does not occur then the original does not occur. sent16: the stunting scattered occurs. sent17: that the unmilitariness happens is prevented by that the renovation does not occur and the consorting coverage does not occur. sent18: both the nay and the controlling happens. sent19: the fact that the overexertion does not occur and the unmilitariness occurs does not hold if the insaneness does not occur. sent20: the fact that the aeroliticness happens and the relation happens is right. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the renovation happens.; int1 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens.

the consorting coverage happens and the renovation happens.

if the renovation occurs the unmilitariness occurs.

the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true.

sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. sent4: the consorting tribuneship does not occur. sent5: the spaceflight does not occur if that the nonlexicalness and the non-radialness occurs is not correct. sent6: the spaceflight does not occur if the radial occurs. sent7: that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. sent8: the resuming occurs.

¬{B}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{GD} sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent8: {HQ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the spaceflight occurs is not false.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spaceflight does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the dilution occurs. sent2: the fact that the dilution does not occur and the spaceflight does not occur is not true if the Tahitianness does not occur. sent3: if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true. sent4: the consorting tribuneship does not occur. sent5: the spaceflight does not occur if that the nonlexicalness and the non-radialness occurs is not correct. sent6: the spaceflight does not occur if the radial occurs. sent7: that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold. sent8: the resuming occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold.

that both the nonlexicalness and the radial occurs does not hold.

if the dilution happens the fact that the nonlexicalness happens and the radial occurs is not true.

there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true.

sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact that that the thyrotropin is quartzose and it is not non-innumerate is true does not hold. sent4: the Iowan is not quartzose. sent5: the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. sent6: the fact that the moor does not range is right. sent7: the fact that the thyrotropin does range and it is innumerate is incorrect if the moor is not quartzose. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a hematinic and remains does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that that it does range and is innumerate is correct is incorrect. sent10: that the thyrotropin is innumerate and is quartzose is not true. sent11: the moor is not quartzose.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: ¬({HR}{b} & {DG}{b}) sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: ¬{A}{ao} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{IO}x & {IJ}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a range and it is innumerate is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the thyrotropin considers billfish and is unobjectionable does not hold. sent2: something does not range but it is innumerate. sent3: the fact that that the thyrotropin is quartzose and it is not non-innumerate is true does not hold. sent4: the Iowan is not quartzose. sent5: the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose. sent6: the fact that the moor does not range is right. sent7: the fact that the thyrotropin does range and it is innumerate is incorrect if the moor is not quartzose. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a hematinic and remains does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that that it does range and is innumerate is correct is incorrect. sent10: that the thyrotropin is innumerate and is quartzose is not true. sent11: the moor is not quartzose. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent11 -> int1: that the thyrotropin is not a kind of a range but it is innumerate does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose.

the fact that the thyrotropin is not a range but it is innumerate is false if the moor is not quartzose.

the moor is not quartzose.

the nosewheel hoofs.

sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the nosewheel is a hoofing.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nosewheel hoofs. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the cloud does not stunt pickpocket.

The cloud doesn't stunt pickpockets.

the cloud is not a drupelet.

the nosewheel hoofs.

sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the nosewheel is a hoofing.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nosewheel hoofs. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof. sent2: if the niece consorts quibble then the cloud does consorts quibble. sent3: the cloud is not a drupelet. sent4: The pickpocket does not stunt cloud. sent5: something that caprioles and is not neurophysiological is a lusterware. sent6: the fact that the nosewheel does not stunt pickpocket is true. sent7: something that stunts pickpocket does hoof. sent8: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket. sent9: if the cloud consorts quibble then the nosewheel is a kind of a capriole and is not neurophysiological. sent10: there is something such that it is not adjective. sent11: something is a kind of a drupelet if it is a kind of a lusterware. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the cloud does not stunt pickpocket and is not a drupelet.; int1 -> int2: something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a kind of a drupelet.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the cloud does not stunt pickpocket.

The cloud doesn't stunt pickpocketing.

if something does not stunt pickpocket and it is not a drupelet the nosewheel does not hoof.

the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false.

sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs.

{D}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA}

PROVED

PROVED

the immunocompetentness happens.

{FC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs.

If the sack occurs, the schematization is not incorrect.

the sacking occurs.

the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false.

sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs.

{D}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA}

PROVED

PROVED

the immunocompetentness happens.

{FC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs.

If the sack occurs, the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect.

the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs.

the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false.

sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs.

{D}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {IS} -> {ES} sent3: {I} -> {DG} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {AK} sent6: {DB} -> {IU} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {AN} -> {GM} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent11: {AA}

PROVED

PROVED

the immunocompetentness happens.

{FC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the aphaniticness happens is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs. sent2: the launch is caused by that the casualty happens. sent3: if that the mousetrap happens hold then the Norman occurs. sent4: if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens. sent5: the nonionicness occurs. sent6: if the earlessness occurs then the Swiss happens. sent7: the indentation occurs if the schematization occurs. sent8: the canine prevents that the refund does not occur. sent9: the sacking occurs. sent10: if the lithographicness does not occur then that the aphaniticness occurs and the indentation occurs does not hold. sent11: the stunting stepper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the schematization happens.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the indentation occurs.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the schematization occurs is not incorrect if the sacking occurs.

If the sack occurs, it's not incorrect that the schematization occurs.

if the indentation occurs then the aphaniticness happens.

that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct.

sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dad is not Martian.

¬{D}{fr}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right.

If the zamia does stunts then it is not right.

the zamia stunts algometer.

that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct.

sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dad is not Martian.

¬{D}{fr}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right.

If the Zamia does stunts then it is not right.

if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet.

that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct.

sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dad is not Martian.

¬{D}{fr}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the zamia is not a nymphet but it is uveal is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian. sent2: the Devon is a kind of a details. sent3: if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right. sent4: the zamia stunts algometer. sent5: The algometer stunts zamia. sent6: if the zamia does detail but it is not a Martian it is not a nymphet. sent7: that something does not extrapolate and/or considers restharrow does not hold if it does not disguise. sent8: the zamia does deny if it is uveal. sent9: if the zamia does not stunt algometer then that the dad is not a kind of a Martian hold. sent10: the zamia is not a kind of a details if that that the stoma does not extrapolate or it does consider restharrow or both hold is incorrect. sent11: something is a kind of a nymphet and it is uveal if it is not a details. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the zamia is uveal.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the zamia is not a kind of a nymphet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the zamia stunts algometer then that it is not uveal is not right.

If the Zamia does stunts, then it is not right.

the zamia is a details but it is not a Martian.

the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false.

sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the effecter does not logroll.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam.

It is not a kind of Islam, at least that is what 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 SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway.

the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false.

sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the effecter does not logroll.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam.

It is not a kind of Islam, at least that's what 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 SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng.

the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false.

sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the effecter does not logroll.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the effecter does logroll is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a fission. sent2: if that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not true the Montrachet stunt getaway. sent3: if the fact that something is a Islam but it does not stunt plexor is not correct it stunt plexor. sent4: if something that does not pray is a worthy the Timothy is not a canter. sent5: there exists something such that it does not pray and is a kind of a worthy. sent6: something does not logroll if it stunts plexor or does not logroll or both. sent7: if the Montrachet stunts getaway then the fact that the effecter is a Islam and does not stunt plexor is wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Islam then the Montrachet stunts plexor and/or does stunt getaway. sent9: that the effecter logrolls is not incorrect if the convolution is a ginseng. sent10: the effecter is a ginseng. sent11: there exists something such that it stunts plexor. sent12: if the Montrachet does logroll the effecter stunts getaway. sent13: the fact that the Montrachet either stunts plexor or does logroll or both is not false. sent14: the convolution stunts getaway. sent15: the convolution logrolls if the effecter is a ginseng. sent16: if the Montrachet is a kind of a ginseng then the convolution does stunt getaway. sent17: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Islam. sent18: if the Montrachet does stunt plexor the convolution is a ginseng. sent19: if there is something such that it does not stunt plexor then the effecter does logroll and/or it stunts getaway. sent20: if that the posthouse is a ginseng is true then the fact that either the convolution is amblyopic or it does not stunt getaway or both is not correct. sent21: there is something such that it is a Islam. sent22: if the fact that the Montrachet does stunt getaway is not false then the convolution is a ginseng. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent8 -> int1: either the Montrachet does stunt plexor or it does stunt getaway or both.; int1 & sent18 & sent22 -> int2: the convolution is a ginseng.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance