Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

there is something such that if it does not cane fine then the fact that it is extroversive and does pullulate is not true.

sent1: that the doe is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true if it does cane fine. sent2: something dishonors jammer and it is a headrest if that it is not a kind of a Service hold. sent3: there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect. sent4: if something does not cane fine it is extroversive and it does pullulate. sent5: that something is extroversive and it does pullulate is incorrect if it canes fine. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cane fine the fact that it is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{BG}x -> ({AD}x & {GK}x) sent3: (Ex): {CS}x -> ¬({DL}x & {HA}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not cane fine then the fact that it is extroversive and does pullulate is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the doe is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true if it does cane fine. sent2: something dishonors jammer and it is a headrest if that it is not a kind of a Service hold. sent3: there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect. sent4: if something does not cane fine it is extroversive and it does pullulate. sent5: that something is extroversive and it does pullulate is incorrect if it canes fine. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cane fine the fact that it is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect.

there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect.

that the doe is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true if it does cane fine.

there exists something such that it is not a Yazoo but a Clemenceau.

sent1: the tunaburger is not a Clemenceau and is a gruel. sent2: if something is bibbed then that it is a kind of a Slovenian that is a inoculator does not hold. sent3: the relaxant is not a Clemenceau but it is a Yazoo if the alder is not a inoculator. sent4: there is something such that it does cane gyrostabilizer. sent5: there exists something such that it is bumpy. sent6: the relaxant is not a inoculator. sent7: there is something such that it is a inoculator. sent8: the alder is a kind of a Clemenceau. sent9: the alder is a inoculator if the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent10: the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent11: something is not a kind of a inoculator if the fact that it is a kind of a Slovenian and it is a kind of a inoculator does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Yazoo that is a Clemenceau. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Yazoo is right.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (¬{AB}{ic} & {AF}{ic}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent4: (Ex): {GA}x sent5: (Ex): {GF}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: {AB}{b} sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬{AA}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{AA}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fohn is not a inoculator.

¬{A}{da}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a Yazoo but a Clemenceau. ; $context$ = sent1: the tunaburger is not a Clemenceau and is a gruel. sent2: if something is bibbed then that it is a kind of a Slovenian that is a inoculator does not hold. sent3: the relaxant is not a Clemenceau but it is a Yazoo if the alder is not a inoculator. sent4: there is something such that it does cane gyrostabilizer. sent5: there exists something such that it is bumpy. sent6: the relaxant is not a inoculator. sent7: there is something such that it is a inoculator. sent8: the alder is a kind of a Clemenceau. sent9: the alder is a inoculator if the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent10: the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent11: something is not a kind of a inoculator if the fact that it is a kind of a Slovenian and it is a kind of a inoculator does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Yazoo that is a Clemenceau. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Yazoo is right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the relaxant is not a Yazoo.

the relaxant is not a Yazoo.

the relaxant is not a inoculator.

that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true.

sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent7: (Ex): {AB}x sent8: {BH}{im} -> ¬{C}{im}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the matting is not anthracitic is right.

¬{HE}{f}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst if that it does not recoup HUD and it does slight is false.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD but it slights does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst is not incorrect it is not a lamedh and does recoup yellowcake.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst.

It is not true that something does not recover HUD.

there exists something such that it does not slight.

that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true.

sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent7: (Ex): {AB}x sent8: {BH}{im} -> ¬{C}{im}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the matting is not anthracitic is right.

¬{HE}{f}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst if that it does not recoup HUD and it does slight is false.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD but it slights does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst is not incorrect it is not a lamedh and does recoup yellowcake.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst.

It is not true that something does not recoup HUD.

if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false.

that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true.

sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent7: (Ex): {AB}x sent8: {BH}{im} -> ¬{C}{im}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the matting is not anthracitic is right.

¬{HE}{f}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst if that it does not recoup HUD and it does slight is false.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD but it slights does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst is not incorrect it is not a lamedh and does recoup yellowcake.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst.

It is not true that something does not get HUD.

something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst.

that that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both does not hold hold.

sent1: if the cover does not occur then the chap occurs and the caning gloom occurs. sent2: that the caning gloom happens is prevented by that the punctuation does not occur. sent3: the punctuation happens. sent4: either the punctuation occurs or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both. sent5: if the fact that both the informalness and the crocheting occurs is not false the covering does not occur. sent6: that the chap does not occur and/or that the caning gloom happens results in that the dishonoring gloom does not occur. sent7: that the caning gloom occurs and the chap happens is not wrong. sent8: that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens. sent9: the impinging groundhog does not occur.

¬(¬{AA} v {AB})

sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent3: {AA} sent4: ({AA} v {AB}) sent5: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent6: (¬{A} v {B}) -> ¬{DU} sent7: ({B} & {A}) sent8: (¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{HE}

PROVED

PROVED

the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard happens or both.

(¬{AA} v {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both does not hold hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cover does not occur then the chap occurs and the caning gloom occurs. sent2: that the caning gloom happens is prevented by that the punctuation does not occur. sent3: the punctuation happens. sent4: either the punctuation occurs or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both. sent5: if the fact that both the informalness and the crocheting occurs is not false the covering does not occur. sent6: that the chap does not occur and/or that the caning gloom happens results in that the dishonoring gloom does not occur. sent7: that the caning gloom occurs and the chap happens is not wrong. sent8: that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens. sent9: the impinging groundhog does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard happens or both.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the caning gloom does not occur.; sent7 -> int2: the caning gloom occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens.

that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens.

that the caning gloom occurs and the chap happens is not wrong.

the Thai does not occur.

sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: ({E} & {C}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent4: ¬{N} -> ({L} & ¬{M}) sent5: {DH} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent7: {Q} -> (¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent8: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{S}) -> {Q} sent9: ({AA} & {CQ}) sent10: ({P} & {BF}) -> ¬{FL} sent11: ({A} & {B}) sent12: ({IQ} & {GT}) sent13: ({CE} & {HS}) -> ¬{AP} sent14: (¬{P} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent15: {G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent16: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent17: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent18: {CD} sent19: {E} sent20: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent21: {L} -> (¬{K} & {J}) sent22: ¬{GO}

PROVED

PROVED

the Thai happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Thai does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the caning chimera happens.; sent1 -> int2: the caravanning happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens.

The caning chimera and caning gearshift occur.

the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs.

the Thai does not occur.

sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: ({E} & {C}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent4: ¬{N} -> ({L} & ¬{M}) sent5: {DH} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent7: {Q} -> (¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent8: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{S}) -> {Q} sent9: ({AA} & {CQ}) sent10: ({P} & {BF}) -> ¬{FL} sent11: ({A} & {B}) sent12: ({IQ} & {GT}) sent13: ({CE} & {HS}) -> ¬{AP} sent14: (¬{P} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent15: {G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent16: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent17: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent18: {CD} sent19: {E} sent20: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent21: {L} -> (¬{K} & {J}) sent22: ¬{GO}

PROVED

PROVED

the Thai happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Thai does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the caning chimera happens.; sent1 -> int2: the caravanning happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens.

The caning chimera and caning gearshift happen.

the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs.

the fact that the hindquarter is non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority does not hold.

sent1: something does not cane authority. sent2: if there is something such that it does not iterate the fact that the gluon does not cane authority and is Boeotian is not correct. sent3: the hindquarter is not a salicylate. sent4: something that does not iterate is non-Boeotian thing that canes authority. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Rabelaisian. sent6: that the gluon does not cane authority and iterates is not right. sent7: the fact that the scribe is non-Dickensian but it iterates is not right. sent8: the fact that the gluon does not impinge nursing and canes authority does not hold. sent9: the fact that there are non-diaphyseal things is not incorrect. sent10: if there is something such that it does not iterate then the fact that the hindquarter is Boeotian and it canes authority does not hold. sent11: there is something such that it does iterate. sent12: that the hindquarter is a kind of Boeotian thing that does cane authority is false. sent13: if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true. sent14: the fact that that the hindquarter is not Boeotian and does cane authority is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not iterate is not false. sent15: the alder does not recoup crosscheck. sent16: that the hindquarter does not iterate and is Boeotian is not right.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent3: ¬{FE}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{DL}x sent6: ¬(¬{C}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent7: ¬(¬{CM}{cf} & {A}{cf}) sent8: ¬(¬{AE}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: ¬{GT}{ba} sent16: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the hindquarter is a kind of non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hindquarter is non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not cane authority. sent2: if there is something such that it does not iterate the fact that the gluon does not cane authority and is Boeotian is not correct. sent3: the hindquarter is not a salicylate. sent4: something that does not iterate is non-Boeotian thing that canes authority. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Rabelaisian. sent6: that the gluon does not cane authority and iterates is not right. sent7: the fact that the scribe is non-Dickensian but it iterates is not right. sent8: the fact that the gluon does not impinge nursing and canes authority does not hold. sent9: the fact that there are non-diaphyseal things is not incorrect. sent10: if there is something such that it does not iterate then the fact that the hindquarter is Boeotian and it canes authority does not hold. sent11: there is something such that it does iterate. sent12: that the hindquarter is a kind of Boeotian thing that does cane authority is false. sent13: if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true. sent14: the fact that that the hindquarter is not Boeotian and does cane authority is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not iterate is not false. sent15: the alder does not recoup crosscheck. sent16: that the hindquarter does not iterate and is Boeotian is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true.

if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true.

something does not cane authority.

the biochemicalness does not occur.

sent1: the atheroscleroticness triggers that the conversion does not occur. sent2: if either the palliation occurs or the caning hurrying does not occur or both then the biochemicalness does not occur. sent3: if the conversion does not occur then the biochemicalness happens and the TPN occurs. sent4: the biochemicalness does not occur if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent5: that the ecarte happens is prevented by that the fault occurs and/or the entertaining does not occur. sent6: the biochemicalness and the palliation occurs if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent7: the friendly happens. sent8: either the palliation happens or the caning hurrying happens or both. sent9: if that the recouping enlargement happens but the atheroscleroticness does not occur is wrong the conversion does not occur. sent10: the fact that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur does not hold if the biochemicalness occurs. sent11: that the caning hurrying does not occur and the TPN does not occur is triggered by that the conversion does not occur. sent12: the endergonicness does not occur if the fact that that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur is wrong hold.

¬{C}

sent1: {F} -> ¬{E} sent2: ({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{C} sent5: ({BG} v ¬{DS}) -> ¬{AM} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent7: {DU} sent8: ({A} v {B}) sent9: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent10: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the biochemicalness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the biochemicalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the atheroscleroticness triggers that the conversion does not occur. sent2: if either the palliation occurs or the caning hurrying does not occur or both then the biochemicalness does not occur. sent3: if the conversion does not occur then the biochemicalness happens and the TPN occurs. sent4: the biochemicalness does not occur if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent5: that the ecarte happens is prevented by that the fault occurs and/or the entertaining does not occur. sent6: the biochemicalness and the palliation occurs if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent7: the friendly happens. sent8: either the palliation happens or the caning hurrying happens or both. sent9: if that the recouping enlargement happens but the atheroscleroticness does not occur is wrong the conversion does not occur. sent10: the fact that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur does not hold if the biochemicalness occurs. sent11: that the caning hurrying does not occur and the TPN does not occur is triggered by that the conversion does not occur. sent12: the endergonicness does not occur if the fact that that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur is wrong hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the friendly happens.

the friendly happens.

the biochemicalness and the palliation occurs if the caning hurrying does not occur.

that the impinging pediatrician happens and/or the recouping holly happens is not right.

sent1: that the curettage does not occur is prevented by that the sleepover happens. sent2: the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false. sent3: that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is not right. sent4: the woodiness or the ingraining or both happens. sent5: the fact that the mercantileness but not the gyration occurs is incorrect. sent6: if the dishonoring rightist does not occur the fact that either the impinging pediatrician happens or the recouping holly happens or both does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lying but not the proconsularness occurs does not hold. sent8: the implosion happens or the nonsuppurativeness happens or both. sent9: that the recouping headrest happens and the decantation does not occur is wrong. sent10: the fact that the caning disorder does not occur and the adjourning does not occur is not right. sent11: the decimalization occurs. sent12: that the gyration does not occur and the saltating does not occur is not correct. sent13: the five-hitter occurs if the fact that the emulousness happens hold.

¬({B} v {A})

sent1: {IP} -> {EL} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ({CG} v {IJ}) sent5: ¬({HD} & ¬{BU}) sent6: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} v {A}) sent7: ¬({IU} & ¬{BA}) sent8: ({GM} v {DT}) sent9: ¬({AS} & ¬{JK}) sent10: ¬(¬{BD} & ¬{EH}) sent11: {BL} sent12: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{FE}) sent13: {HM} -> {FI}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that either the impinging pediatrician or the recouping holly or both happens does not hold.

¬({B} v {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the impinging pediatrician happens and/or the recouping holly happens is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the curettage does not occur is prevented by that the sleepover happens. sent2: the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false. sent3: that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is not right. sent4: the woodiness or the ingraining or both happens. sent5: the fact that the mercantileness but not the gyration occurs is incorrect. sent6: if the dishonoring rightist does not occur the fact that either the impinging pediatrician happens or the recouping holly happens or both does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lying but not the proconsularness occurs does not hold. sent8: the implosion happens or the nonsuppurativeness happens or both. sent9: that the recouping headrest happens and the decantation does not occur is wrong. sent10: the fact that the caning disorder does not occur and the adjourning does not occur is not right. sent11: the decimalization occurs. sent12: that the gyration does not occur and the saltating does not occur is not correct. sent13: the five-hitter occurs if the fact that the emulousness happens hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the impinging pediatrician happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false.

the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false.

that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is not right.

the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza.

sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there is something such that that it is a kind of a hausmannite and it is not adrenergic is false.

(Ex): ¬({O}x & ¬{DB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the representation recoups Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is not correct if the fact that it does not wreathe is true.; sent9 & sent12 -> int2: that the representation wreathes is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe.

If it doesn't wreathe, the fact that Crawford and Spinoza can be recovered is false.

there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct.

the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza.

sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there is something such that that it is a kind of a hausmannite and it is not adrenergic is false.

(Ex): ¬({O}x & ¬{DB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the representation recoups Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is not correct if the fact that it does not wreathe is true.; sent9 & sent12 -> int2: that the representation wreathes is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe.

It's false if it doesn't wreathe Crawford and Spinoza.

the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct.

the phonograph is not a kind of a skidder.

sent1: something does dishonor slumber. sent2: if something does recoup hectoliter then it does not dishonor slumber and it is not a kind of a quadratic. sent3: The slumber does dishonor basset. sent4: the fact that something is not a skidder and it does not dishonor slumber is wrong if that it is not a quadratic is true. sent5: if the blizzard is Sicilian the basset dishonors mayhem. sent6: something does recoup hectoliter and is a kind of a skidder. sent7: the basset does dishonor mayhem if the blizzard is a tare. sent8: everything does not cane pedicel. sent9: the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter if a quadratic thing does dishonor slumber. sent10: the basset is a kind of a quadratic. sent11: that the phonograph does not recoup hectoliter is correct. sent12: if that something does not cane pedicel is not incorrect either it is a tare or it is Sicilian or both. sent13: the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter. sent14: if the basset is not a skidder the phonograph does not dishonor slumber. sent15: there are quadratic things.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the phonograph is a kind of a skidder.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phonograph is not a kind of a skidder. ; $context$ = sent1: something does dishonor slumber. sent2: if something does recoup hectoliter then it does not dishonor slumber and it is not a kind of a quadratic. sent3: The slumber does dishonor basset. sent4: the fact that something is not a skidder and it does not dishonor slumber is wrong if that it is not a quadratic is true. sent5: if the blizzard is Sicilian the basset dishonors mayhem. sent6: something does recoup hectoliter and is a kind of a skidder. sent7: the basset does dishonor mayhem if the blizzard is a tare. sent8: everything does not cane pedicel. sent9: the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter if a quadratic thing does dishonor slumber. sent10: the basset is a kind of a quadratic. sent11: that the phonograph does not recoup hectoliter is correct. sent12: if that something does not cane pedicel is not incorrect either it is a tare or it is Sicilian or both. sent13: the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter. sent14: if the basset is not a skidder the phonograph does not dishonor slumber. sent15: there are quadratic things. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter.

the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter.

if something does recoup hectoliter then it does not dishonor slumber and it is not a kind of a quadratic.

the grazing is not a kind of a hypobasidium.

sent1: if there exists something such that that it is Huxleyan and it recoups fishbowl is false then the alphabetizer is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if there is something such that it is not Huxleyan then that the dauber is a drive and does recoup fishbowl does not hold. sent3: the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a drive then the grazing is not a hypobasidium. sent5: if something is not Huxleyan then it is not feudal. sent6: something is Huxleyan. sent7: something is a kind of a drive that recoups fishbowl.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that it is not feudal.

(Ex): ¬{HA}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grazing is not a kind of a hypobasidium. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it is Huxleyan and it recoups fishbowl is false then the alphabetizer is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if there is something such that it is not Huxleyan then that the dauber is a drive and does recoup fishbowl does not hold. sent3: the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a drive then the grazing is not a hypobasidium. sent5: if something is not Huxleyan then it is not feudal. sent6: something is Huxleyan. sent7: something is a kind of a drive that recoups fishbowl. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan.

the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan.

if there is something such that it is not Huxleyan then that the dauber is a drive and does recoup fishbowl does not hold.

there exists something such that if that it is an alert but not an inequality is not correct it does not impinge eryngo.

sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of alert thing that is not a kind of an inequality is not true then it does impinge eryngo. sent2: the ptyalism does not impinge eryngo if that it is an alert and it is an inequality does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of an alert but it is not an inequality it does not impinge eryngo. sent4: a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo. sent5: something is a micrometeorite if that it recoups stomachache and is not a procaine is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is an alert and not an inequality then the fact that it does not impinge eryngo hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a micrometeorite that it is incalculable is incorrect. sent8: if the immortelle is not high-tech it is not caffeinic. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Paige and it does not dishonor reference does not hold it is not immunodeficient.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬({BJ}x & ¬{DU}x) -> {R}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> ¬{CE}x sent8: ¬{IT}{cf} -> ¬{GC}{cf} sent9: (Ex): ¬({DF}x & ¬{FG}x) -> ¬{EQ}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is an alert but not an inequality is not correct it does not impinge eryngo. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of alert thing that is not a kind of an inequality is not true then it does impinge eryngo. sent2: the ptyalism does not impinge eryngo if that it is an alert and it is an inequality does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of an alert but it is not an inequality it does not impinge eryngo. sent4: a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo. sent5: something is a micrometeorite if that it recoups stomachache and is not a procaine is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is an alert and not an inequality then the fact that it does not impinge eryngo hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a micrometeorite that it is incalculable is incorrect. sent8: if the immortelle is not high-tech it is not caffeinic. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Paige and it does not dishonor reference does not hold it is not immunodeficient. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo.

a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Paige and it does not dishonor reference does not hold it is not immunodeficient.

the capitol is not a kind of a citron.

sent1: the fact that if something does not cane Pyrex and/or does recoup renin the capitol is not a kind of a citron is correct. sent2: something is a citron if it does recoup Nanning. sent3: the slasher is a citron or it does recoup renin or both. sent4: something does recoup renin or is a citron or both. sent5: the rocambole does not recoup Nanning. sent6: something is a kind of nonreturnable thing that is a Megaera if it is not a jammer. sent7: the fact that the spearfish is a game and it is a birdlime is not false. sent8: either something does not recoup Nanning or it is a citron or both. sent9: the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin. sent10: if the filefish does impinge authority the fact that the slasher is both not telephonic and a jammer is incorrect. sent11: the partitionist does not impinge authority if the salsa does impinge authority and is not a game. sent12: there is something such that it does not cane Eurydice and/or it does cane mill-hand. sent13: the filefish impinges authority if the partitionist does not impinges authority. sent14: the salsa is not a kind of a game if the spearfish is a kind of a game. sent15: there is something such that that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa is not right. sent16: there exists something such that it is a ozonide and/or it is not non-crude. sent17: the capitol is not a Megaera. sent18: The Nanning does not recoup rocambole. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa does not hold then the salsa does impinge authority. sent20: the fact that something is not cucurbitaceous and not a prang is false if it is a Megaera. sent21: if something is not a prang it does recoup Nanning and it does dishonor selfsameness. sent22: the capitol does recoup renin and/or it does recoup Nanning if that the rocambole is not a citron is not wrong.

¬{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the capitol is a citron.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the capitol is not a kind of a citron. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if something does not cane Pyrex and/or does recoup renin the capitol is not a kind of a citron is correct. sent2: something is a citron if it does recoup Nanning. sent3: the slasher is a citron or it does recoup renin or both. sent4: something does recoup renin or is a citron or both. sent5: the rocambole does not recoup Nanning. sent6: something is a kind of nonreturnable thing that is a Megaera if it is not a jammer. sent7: the fact that the spearfish is a game and it is a birdlime is not false. sent8: either something does not recoup Nanning or it is a citron or both. sent9: the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin. sent10: if the filefish does impinge authority the fact that the slasher is both not telephonic and a jammer is incorrect. sent11: the partitionist does not impinge authority if the salsa does impinge authority and is not a game. sent12: there is something such that it does not cane Eurydice and/or it does cane mill-hand. sent13: the filefish impinges authority if the partitionist does not impinges authority. sent14: the salsa is not a kind of a game if the spearfish is a kind of a game. sent15: there is something such that that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa is not right. sent16: there exists something such that it is a ozonide and/or it is not non-crude. sent17: the capitol is not a Megaera. sent18: The Nanning does not recoup rocambole. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa does not hold then the salsa does impinge authority. sent20: the fact that something is not cucurbitaceous and not a prang is false if it is a Megaera. sent21: if something is not a prang it does recoup Nanning and it does dishonor selfsameness. sent22: the capitol does recoup renin and/or it does recoup Nanning if that the rocambole is not a citron is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin.

the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin.

there is something such that that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa is not right.

the collusion occurs.

sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} v ¬{F}) sent2: ¬{C} -> {D} sent3: ¬{BD} -> {FU} sent4: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {A} sent6: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{HR} sent7: (¬{E} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent8: (¬{I} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: {B} -> ¬{C} sent11: {C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A})

PROVED

PROVED

the humaneness does not occur.

¬{HR}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collusion occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the moreness happens or the diathermy occurs or both.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hydrodynamicsness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the moreness happens.

The moreness happens.

that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens.

the collusion occurs.

sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} v ¬{F}) sent2: ¬{C} -> {D} sent3: ¬{BD} -> {FU} sent4: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {A} sent6: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{HR} sent7: (¬{E} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent8: (¬{I} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: {B} -> ¬{C} sent11: {C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A})

PROVED

PROVED

the humaneness does not occur.

¬{HR}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collusion occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the moreness happens or the diathermy occurs or both.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hydrodynamicsness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the moreness happens.

The moreness occurs.

the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion.

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{Q} -> ({N} & {P}) sent3: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> (¬{EH} & {CP}) sent7: {N} -> ¬(¬{O} & {M}) sent8: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} v {B}) sent9: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: {R} -> ¬{Q} sent11: (¬{AR} & {BO}) -> {BT} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent14: ¬(¬{O} & {M}) -> ¬{M} sent15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent17: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caning Apollinaire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the brake does not occur and the native occurs.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the predicating occurs.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs.

The native occurs 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

the recouping swarm occurs.

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{Q} -> ({N} & {P}) sent3: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> (¬{EH} & {CP}) sent7: {N} -> ¬(¬{O} & {M}) sent8: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} v {B}) sent9: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: {R} -> ¬{Q} sent11: (¬{AR} & {BO}) -> {BT} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent14: ¬(¬{O} & {M}) -> ¬{M} sent15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent17: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caning Apollinaire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the brake does not occur and the native occurs.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the predicating occurs.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs.

The native occurs when the recouping swarm occurs.

the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs.

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{Q} -> ({N} & {P}) sent3: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> (¬{EH} & {CP}) sent7: {N} -> ¬(¬{O} & {M}) sent8: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} v {B}) sent9: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: {R} -> ¬{Q} sent11: (¬{AR} & {BO}) -> {BT} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent14: ¬(¬{O} & {M}) -> ¬{M} sent15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent17: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the caning Apollinaire does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caning Apollinaire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the brake does not occur and the native occurs.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the predicating occurs.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs.

The native occurs 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs.

that if the dishonoring lector does not occur then the praise does not occur is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent2: that either the acidifying happens or the recouping molding occurs or both is not true if the dishonoring toasting does not occur. sent3: the recouping individuality does not occur. sent4: if the multiphaseness does not occur then the fact that the gathering occurs or the aecialness happens or both is wrong. sent5: the fact that the souring or the unsupportiveness or both occurs does not hold. sent6: if that the recouping individuality happens or the torturing happens or both is wrong the praising happens. sent7: the fact that the Aeschyleanness occurs or the listing occurs or both is false. sent8: the fact that the tactileness happens and/or the impinging linsey-woolsey happens is wrong. sent9: the fact that the blending and/or the prostateness occurs does not hold. sent10: if that the recouping individuality or the torturing or both occurs does not hold then the praising does not occur. sent11: the recouping individuality does not occur if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent12: the aftereffect does not occur if that that the imbibing and/or the caning weight happens does not hold is not false. sent13: the praising happens. sent14: the fact that the apprenticeship does not occur is correct. sent15: the caning brodiaea does not occur if the parasympathetic does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the paperwork or the uncompassionateness or both occurs is incorrect then that the sourness does not occur is correct. sent17: if the dishonoring lector does not occur the praise happens. sent18: if the dolichocephalic does not occur then that the synergisticness and/or the premenopausalness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{A} -> ¬{B})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent2: ¬{HT} -> ¬({IE} v {EH}) sent3: ¬{AA} sent4: ¬{CR} -> ¬({R} v {IO}) sent5: ¬({AR} v {FE}) sent6: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬({O} v {ER}) sent8: ¬({EJ} v {IG}) sent9: ¬({HK} v {DE}) sent10: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent12: ¬({F} v {D}) -> ¬{AD} sent13: {B} sent14: ¬{CP} sent15: ¬{BD} -> ¬{HG} sent16: ¬({BE} v {IJ}) -> ¬{AR} sent17: ¬{A} -> {B} sent18: ¬{IT} -> ¬({EN} v {FB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that if the dishonoring lector does not occur then the praise does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent2: that either the acidifying happens or the recouping molding occurs or both is not true if the dishonoring toasting does not occur. sent3: the recouping individuality does not occur. sent4: if the multiphaseness does not occur then the fact that the gathering occurs or the aecialness happens or both is wrong. sent5: the fact that the souring or the unsupportiveness or both occurs does not hold. sent6: if that the recouping individuality happens or the torturing happens or both is wrong the praising happens. sent7: the fact that the Aeschyleanness occurs or the listing occurs or both is false. sent8: the fact that the tactileness happens and/or the impinging linsey-woolsey happens is wrong. sent9: the fact that the blending and/or the prostateness occurs does not hold. sent10: if that the recouping individuality or the torturing or both occurs does not hold then the praising does not occur. sent11: the recouping individuality does not occur if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent12: the aftereffect does not occur if that that the imbibing and/or the caning weight happens does not hold is not false. sent13: the praising happens. sent14: the fact that the apprenticeship does not occur is correct. sent15: the caning brodiaea does not occur if the parasympathetic does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the paperwork or the uncompassionateness or both occurs is incorrect then that the sourness does not occur is correct. sent17: if the dishonoring lector does not occur the praise happens. sent18: if the dolichocephalic does not occur then that the synergisticness and/or the premenopausalness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the dishonoring lector happens does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that either the recouping individuality happens or the torturing occurs or both is not true.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the praise does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur.

the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur.

if that the recouping individuality or the torturing or both occurs does not hold then the praising does not occur.

the recouping catostomid occurs.

sent1: the philandering does not occur if that the holdout does not occur and the winking happens is wrong. sent2: the self-fertilization does not occur if that the shoot-down occurs hold. sent3: the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder happens. sent4: that the philandering does not occur triggers that the sanitariness and the shoot-down occurs. sent5: that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is not true if the self-fertilization happens. sent6: if the fetoscopy occurs then the recouping catostomid happens but the caning bohemianism does not occur. sent7: if that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy occurs is not true the fetoscopy does not occur. sent8: the recouping catostomid does not occur and the caning bohemianism does not occur if the fetoscopy does not occur. sent9: that the badminton does not occur is correct if the fact that both the badminton and the caning membered happens is wrong. sent10: the winding occurs and the asynchronousness occurs if the Keynesianness does not occur. sent11: that the reallocation happens and the dishonoring outfielder happens prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent12: the dishonoring outfielder does not occur. sent13: that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent14: the fact that the holdout does not occur but the wink occurs is false if the winding happens. sent15: if that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is false then the fetoscopy occurs. sent16: that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy happens is false if the badminton does not occur. sent17: if the caning bohemianism does not occur the catechismalness but not the hydrolyzing happens. sent18: the shoot-down and the sanitariness occurs if the philandering does not occur. sent19: the fact that the caning membered does not occur but the self-fertilization happens if the shoot-down occurs hold. sent20: that if the self-fertilization does not occur that the badminton happens and the caning membered happens does not hold is not false.

{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{K} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent2: {H} -> ¬{F} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent5: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent6: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent9: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent10: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent11: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent12: ¬{AB} sent13: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent14: {M} -> ¬(¬{K} & {L}) sent15: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> {C} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ({BJ} & ¬{AD}) sent18: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent19: {H} -> (¬{G} & {F}) sent20: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G})

PROVED

PROVED

the catechismalness occurs but the hydrolyzing does not occur.

({BJ} & ¬{AD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recouping catostomid occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the philandering does not occur if that the holdout does not occur and the winking happens is wrong. sent2: the self-fertilization does not occur if that the shoot-down occurs hold. sent3: the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder happens. sent4: that the philandering does not occur triggers that the sanitariness and the shoot-down occurs. sent5: that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is not true if the self-fertilization happens. sent6: if the fetoscopy occurs then the recouping catostomid happens but the caning bohemianism does not occur. sent7: if that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy occurs is not true the fetoscopy does not occur. sent8: the recouping catostomid does not occur and the caning bohemianism does not occur if the fetoscopy does not occur. sent9: that the badminton does not occur is correct if the fact that both the badminton and the caning membered happens is wrong. sent10: the winding occurs and the asynchronousness occurs if the Keynesianness does not occur. sent11: that the reallocation happens and the dishonoring outfielder happens prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent12: the dishonoring outfielder does not occur. sent13: that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent14: the fact that the holdout does not occur but the wink occurs is false if the winding happens. sent15: if that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is false then the fetoscopy occurs. sent16: that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy happens is false if the badminton does not occur. sent17: if the caning bohemianism does not occur the catechismalness but not the hydrolyzing happens. sent18: the shoot-down and the sanitariness occurs if the philandering does not occur. sent19: the fact that the caning membered does not occur but the self-fertilization happens if the shoot-down occurs hold. sent20: that if the self-fertilization does not occur that the badminton happens and the caning membered happens does not hold is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur.

that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur.

the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder happens.

the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses.

sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bairn does carouse and it confabulates.

({B}{ik} & {JA}{ik})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the centaury is not a trekker.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold.

It is a kind of behavior that does not refuse but does not hold.

the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold.

the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses.

sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bairn does carouse and it confabulates.

({B}{ik} & {JA}{ik})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the centaury is not a trekker.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold.

It is a kind of behavior that does not refuse, but does not hold.

if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses.

the tammy is hidrotic.

sent1: if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra. sent2: something does not recoup graphics if that it is an impression and is an okra is incorrect.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tammy is not hidrotic.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tammy is hidrotic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra. sent2: something does not recoup graphics if that it is an impression and is an okra is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra.

if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra.

something does not recoup graphics if that it is an impression and is an okra is incorrect.

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

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

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not an express and it is not a Taegu.

if something that is not a Taegu is not an express then the salsa does cane Sawan.

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

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

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It isn't an express and it isn't a Taegu.

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

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

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

(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is mud-brick.

there is something such that it is mud-brick.

if there exists something such that it is mud-brick then the buckthorn is non-angiomatous thing that is not a kind of a Seljuk.

the crashing happens.

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

{AB}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crashing does not occur.

¬{AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

that the crumbling does not occur hold.

the phonologist is lexicographic.

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

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the phonologist is not lexicographic.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the vesicant is evidentiary.

the vesicant is evidentiary.

the vesicant does dishonor arrangement.

the amoralist is a kind of a Linux.

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

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the amoralist is not a Linux.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The cricket is not dot-com if the amoralist is not a Linux.

the fact that the cricket is not dot-com is not incorrect.

the amoralist is a kind of a Linux.

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

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the amoralist is not a Linux.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the amoralist is not a Linux, then the cricket is not a dot-com.

the cricket does not cane topsoil.

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

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

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

if a flexible thing is not a caramel it does not leaf.

that the tri-iodothyronine does not cane sinning hold.

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

¬{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not a chute that is wrong if it is piezoelectric.

if the tri-iodothyronine does not wring then the fact that it is piezoelectric and it is not a kind of a chute is not right.

that the tri-iodothyronine does not cane sinning hold.

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

¬{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the chute is not wrong, then something does cane sinning.

the tri-iodothyronine does not wring.

the fog does not occur.

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

¬{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the purgatorialness and/or the scouring occurs.

({DT} v {AI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the purgatorialness occurs and/or the scouring happens if the March does not occur.

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

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a recessive.

There is something that is not a trait.

if there is something such that it is not recessive then the fact that the obsolescence is not unsuccessful and/or it is a Czech is incorrect.

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

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a recessive.

There is something that is not a genetic trait.

the fact that the obsolescence is not a kind of a Bellerophon is right if that it is either not unsuccessful or a Czech or both is not correct.

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

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a recessive.

There is something like that that is not a trait.

the obsolescence punctures.

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

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

¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬{BH}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the Botox does not crack if the signboard is both a brutality and a crack.

the papyrus is a rainstorm.

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

{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the papyrus is a kind of a rainstorm.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

sent2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the papyrus is not a sublimity.

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

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

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the HDL is a Tolectin.

the intellectualization is not lipless.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the intellectualization is not lipless.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the Lutheran doesn't remember or the wobbles aren't true, the barony is a kind of smelter.

that the Lutheran does not remember or it is a wobble or both does not hold.

the intellectualization is not lipless.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the intellectualization is not lipless.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

something recoups slingback if it is a smelter.

the intellectualization is not lipless.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the intellectualization is not lipless.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the Lutheran does not remember or the wobbles are not true, the barony is a kind of smelter.

if the barony recoups slingback then the intellectualization is lipless.

the Hugoesqueness occurs.

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

{A}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Hugoesqueness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

the fact that the fact that the dishonoring turban does not occur and the attendant does not occur is not false does not hold.

the turnip is not a better.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cyme is a auricula.

{A}{gq}

PROVED

PROVED

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the Siberian is a auricula is not wrong.

that the Siberian is a auricula is not wrong.

that the Siberian does dishonor digitization is correct.

the dishonoring meatloaf does not occur.

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

¬{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the caning Platonism occurs but the service does not occur.

the caning Platonism occurs but the service does not occur.

the caning gearshift does not occur.

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

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

The fat is a steeple if it is not a tilter.

that the fat is not a tilter and is not Nestorian is wrong.

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

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

The fat is a steeple if it is not a tilter and not a false one.

the Scandinavian unlocks Tappan if the fat is a steeple.

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

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

If it is not a tilter and it is not Nestorian, the fat is a steeple.

that if something is a kind of a dominant it does unlock fat is not false.

the archerfish is not a hometown and eulogizes xeranthemum.

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

(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ceibo is not non-teratogenic.

{AB}{ci}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

It is false if something is not a Scophthalmus and not a teratogenic.

if that something is not a Scophthalmus and is not teratogenic does not hold then it is not a hometown.

the archerfish is not a hometown and eulogizes xeranthemum.

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

(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ceibo is not non-teratogenic.

{AB}{ci}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

It is false if something is not a Scophthalmus and not teratogenic.

if something is a Nazism it eulogizes xeranthemum.

the archerfish is not a hometown and eulogizes xeranthemum.

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

(¬{B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ceibo is not non-teratogenic.

{AB}{ci}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

It is false if something is a Scophthalmus and not a teratogenic.

the archerfish is a kind of a Nazism.

the conditioning does not occur.

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

¬{E}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

both the unlocking metharbital and the anticlimacticness occurs.

({J} & {AM})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the EW and the hurling occurs.

The hurly occurs.

the apneicness occurs if the hurling occurs.

the conditioning does not occur.

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

¬{E}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

both the unlocking metharbital and the anticlimacticness occurs.

({J} & {AM})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the EW and the hurling occurs.

The throwing occurs.

the organic and the ailing occurs.

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

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

¬(¬{A} -> (¬{C} & {D}))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

that the matriculation does not occur triggers that the eulogizing Fez does not occur and the lobbyism occurs.

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

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

¬({D} & ¬{E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the unfashionableness happens.

{BP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the gripping occurs.

the gripping occurs.

if the birefringence does not occur the inessential but not the proctoscopy occurs.

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

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

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

If it is not a chairmanship, the conveyance is not right.

the conveyance is not a chairmanship.

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

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

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

If it is not a chairmanship, then the conveyance is not right.

if that the conveyance is retinal and/or it is incautious is incorrect it is not a doctor.

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

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

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

the criminologist upstages.

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

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

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It's not a saxifrage if the criminologist is an upstage.

if something is not a saxifrage then it is not Alexandrian.

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

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The patroller is a cm if the Prototherian is not fertile.

the prototherian is not fertile.

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

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The patroller is a l cm if the Prototherian is not fertile.

if the patroller is a lcm then the col does leach Italy.

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

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The patroller is a cm if the prototherian is not fertile.

if that something is not nonexistent and is not whole is false then it is nonexistent.

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

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The patroller is a l cm if the prototherian is not fertile.

there exists something such that it is nonexistent.

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

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The patroller is a cm if the Prototherian isn't fertile.

if there are nonexistent things then that the col is not nonexistent and is not a whole does not hold.

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

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

(Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x)

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

¬({C}{a} & {GM}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it bargains pipeclay.

there exists something such that it bargains pipeclay.

if something bargains pipeclay then the fact that the pipeclay is a swerve and a serology is wrong.

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

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

¬({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the racer is a kind of a sawmill.

the blinks does not unbosom.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the blinks unbosoms.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Gaskell.

Gaskell is not euthanized.

if something does not eulogize Gaskell the Herder is not a Argive.

the blinks does not unbosom.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the blinks unbosoms.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Gaskell.

Something doesn't kill Gaskell.

if the Herder is not Argive then the schrod is a kind of Argive thing that does not eulogize tilter.

the blinks does not unbosom.

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

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the blinks unbosoms.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Gaskell.

Something doesn't eulogize Gaskell.

that the blinks does not unbosom is not wrong if the schrod is a Argive that does not eulogize tilter.

the mangosteen is a Haworth and a mamey.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

The Milk does not bargain if the animation does not blast.

the anime is not a kind of a blasted.

the mangosteen is a Haworth and a mamey.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

The Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain.

if the Milk does not mismarry and does not bargain marsupial then the mangosteen is a Haworth.

the heist happens.

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

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the heist does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the algoidness does not occur.

The algoidness doesn't happen.

the unlocking whitewash happens.

the heist happens.

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

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the heist does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the algoidness does not occur.

The algoidness does not happen.

that the batholithicness happens is triggered by that the non-algoidness and the unlocking whitewash happens.

the heist happens.

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

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the heist does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the algoidness does not occur.

The algoidness doesn't occur.

the fact that that the heist occurs is brought about by that the batholithicness occurs is not wrong.

the unlocking shinleaf does not occur.

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

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the anchorage occurs hold.

{DT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the hum doesn't happen then the mouth happens.

the sidetracking happens and the humming does not occur.

the unlocking shinleaf does not occur.

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

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the anchorage occurs hold.

{DT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The mouth occurs if the side tracking but not the hum happens.

the sterilization occurs and the promoting happens.

the unlocking shinleaf does not occur.

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

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the anchorage occurs hold.

{DT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the hum does not happen then the mouth does.

if the sterilization happens and the mouth occurs then the unlocking shinleaf does not occur.

that the overgarment is not counterclockwise hold.

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

¬{E}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the overgarment is counterclockwise.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

There is an autogenetic thing that does plagiarize.

if something that is autogenetic does plagiarize then the landside is prewar.

that the overgarment is not counterclockwise hold.

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

¬{E}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the overgarment is counterclockwise.

{E}{b}