Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the faucet is not Rosicrucian and leaches Tebet.

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

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the catwalk is not a Rosicrucian.

¬{C}{ir}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not true that there is a non-substantival life-style.

if there is something such that that it is a kind of substantival thing that does not eulogize life-style is not right then the cocksucker does not eulogize dump.

the faucet is not Rosicrucian and leaches Tebet.

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

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the catwalk is not a Rosicrucian.

¬{C}{ir}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not true that there is a non-substantival life style.

if the cocksucker does not eulogize dump the faucet is not a Rosicrucian but it leaches Tebet.

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

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

¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The armpit is not two-dimensional if the nitrile is a remilitarization.

the fact that the nitrile does eulogize Niger and it is a remilitarization is right.

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

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

¬(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The armpit is not two-dimensional if the nitrile is remilitarization.

if the armpit is not two-dimensional then the clipper is not a kind of a Nanaimo and it is not two-dimensional.

the Herder is not a gamecock.

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

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Herder is not a gamecock.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

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

if something is a talon then the Herder is a bonefish and a gamecock.

the rosefish is not copular.

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

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the rosefish is not copular is correct.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

It is not a kind of chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile the field is not a drumlin and unlocks rosefish.

the rosefish is not copular.

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

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the rosefish is not copular is correct.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something is not a kind of a chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

It's not a kind of chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile.

the rosefish is copular if the field is not a drumlin but it unlocks rosefish.

the ectomorphicness but not the picking happens.

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

({B} & ¬{C})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

¬({B} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the lithotomy and the ectomorphicness happens.

The part of the body that is scuplture and the part that is scuplture and the part that is scuplture and the part that is scuplture and the part that is scuplture and the part that is

that the primingness but not the checkering happens triggers that the picking does not occur.

the ectomorphicness but not the picking happens.

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

({B} & ¬{C})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

¬({B} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the lithotomy and the ectomorphicness happens.

The part of the body that is scuplture and the part of the body that is scuplture and the part of the body that is scuplture and the part of the body that is scuplture and the part of the body that

the priming but not the checker occurs.

there exists something such that it does bargain pepperwort.

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

(Ex): {D}x

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬{EL}{ad} -> {GR}{ad}

PROVED

PROVED

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the catchment does not unlock Christology.

Christology is not unlocked by the catchment.

that the catchment is a damascene is correct.

there exists something such that it does bargain pepperwort.

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

(Ex): {D}x

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬{EL}{ad} -> {GR}{ad}

PROVED

PROVED

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the catchment does not unlock Christology.

Christology isn't unlocked by the catchment.

if something is not a keratoscope then it does bargain pepperwort.

the fact that the vouchee is not Zolaesque is true.

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

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the professional is Zolaesque.

{B}{ga}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If it does not direct, the martin is a carvedilol.

the martin is not directing.

the fact that the vouchee is not Zolaesque is true.

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

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the professional is Zolaesque.

{B}{ga}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the martin does not direct, it is a carvedilol.

if the martin is digestive then the vouchee is Zolaesque.

the fact that the vouchee is not Zolaesque is true.

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

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the professional is Zolaesque.

{B}{ga}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If it doesn't direct, the martin is a carvedilol.

if that the martin is a carvedilol is true the vouchee is Zolaesque.

the simpleness does not occur.

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

¬{A}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the simple happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the dibbling does not occur and the checker does not occur if that the action happens hold.

the spieling but not the blaxploitation occurs.

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

({C} & ¬{D})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the fact that the spiel happens but the blaxploitation does not occur is false if the Wilsonianness does not occur.

the Mayan is not a edutainment.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the hock is not a edutainment is not incorrect.

¬{C}{fb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tetrode is a Nanaimo or not, there is a 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846

the tetrode is a kind of a Nanaimo and/or it does not bargain flood.

the Mayan is not a edutainment.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the hock is not a edutainment is not incorrect.

¬{C}{fb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tetrode is a Nanaimo or neither the flood nor the 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846

if something does eulogize agitation then it is a kind of a akaryocyte.

the Mayan is not a edutainment.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the hock is not a edutainment is not incorrect.

¬{C}{fb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tetrode is a Nanaimo or not, either the flood or the 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846

something is not a edutainment if it is a akaryocyte.

the saboteur is orthographic and it does leach fiddlehead.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not difficult.

It is not difficult.

that the maypole is non-Burmese and/or non-autoplastic is not true if there exists something such that it is not difficult.

the saboteur is orthographic and it does leach fiddlehead.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not difficult.

There is something that is easy to do.

the saboteur is orthographic if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Burmese and/or it is not autoplastic is not right.

that the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus is not incorrect.

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

{C}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore.

Cetorhinus is not euthanized if it is not offshore.

something is not ossiferous and it does not bargain Mellon.

that the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus is not incorrect.

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

{C}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the photography eulogizes Cetorhinus.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

something does not eulogize Cetorhinus if it is not offshore.

Cetorhinus isn't euthanized if it isn't offshore.

the photography is non-offshore if the fact that something is not ossiferous and does not bargain Mellon is right.

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

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

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the malamute is not a gunrunner.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the foamflower does kill Viscum hold then it is hematologic.

the foamflower does eulogize Viscum.

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

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

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the malamute is not a gunrunner.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the foamflower kills Viscum hold then it is hematologic.

if the foamflower is hematologic then the malamute is a kind of a gunrunner.

the heartbreaker and the precession occurs.

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

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur, the heartbreaker is true.

the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur.

the heartbreaker and the precession occurs.

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

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the notation does not occur and the gnarling does not occur, then the heartbreaker is true.

if the moderation occurs then the precession occurs.

the heartbreaker and the precession occurs.

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

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the notation doesn't occur and the gnarling doesn't occur, the heartbreaker is true.

the moderation occurs.

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

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

(¬{C}{c} v {E}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬(¬{C}{c} v {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

the oscillograph does bargain logomach and is less.

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

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

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

{A}{hl}

PROVED

PROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

the Armenian is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus.

the Armenian is a kind of a Amblyrhynchus.

that the Armenian is a paralegal is not incorrect.

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

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

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

if something does not unlock paleness then it is not eruptive.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

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

({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

The blank happens after the crossfire.

the commerce does not occur if the eulogizing Paget does not occur.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

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

({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

The blank occurs after the crossfire.

the eulogizing Paget does not occur.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

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

({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

The blank comes after the crossfire.

that the commerce does not occur and the crossfire happens results in the ankylosing.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

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

({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

The blank happens when the crossfire occurs.

that the interreflection does not occur is brought about by either that the golfing does not occur or that the interreflection does not occur or both.

both the ankylosing and the pleating happens.

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

({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the crossfire and the blank happens.

There is a blank after the crossfire.

either the golfing does not occur or the interreflection does not occur or both.

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

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tourtiere is masochistic hold, the barbarizes.

the tourtiere is masochistic.

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

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tourtiere is masochistic hold, it barbarizes.

if the breechblock strains the tourtiere does unlock guerrilla.

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

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the tourtiere is masochistic, it barbarizes.

the breechblock is a strain.

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

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

¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The Nebraskan is not baric if it is not a Zukerman hold.

the Nebraskan is not a kind of a Zukerman.

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

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

¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The Nebraskan isn't baric if it isn't a Zukerman hold.

the fact that the prickle-weed is a hassock and not Mongolian is not right if the Nebraskan is not baric.

the prototherian eulogizes prototherian.

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

{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If it is a kind of pouched, the Prototherian is a kind of flip.

the prototherian does pouch.

the prototherian eulogizes prototherian.

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

{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The Prototherian is a kind of flip if it is pouched.

if something is a flip it does not eulogize prototherian.

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

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

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic.

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

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

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

It unlocks comfit if something is not a wherewithal.

if there are non-biquadratic things the fact that the panhandler does not glower and unlocks comfit is not correct.

the mamoncillo does not proselytize.

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

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the mamoncillo does proselytize.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The Madeiras is a heavy-duty paradiddle and not right if it doesn't open the girdle.

the Madeiras does not unlock girdle.

the mamoncillo does not proselytize.

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

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the mamoncillo does proselytize.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It's not right that the Madeiras is a heavy-duty paradiddle if it doesn't open the girdle.

the mamoncillo does not proselytize if the fact that the Madeiras is heavy-duty and is a paradiddle is not right.

the ptyalin is both enolic and non-athletic.

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

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ptyalin is enolic and not athletic.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The partridgeberry is a kind of Rwanda.

the legume is a partridgeberry.

the ptyalin is both enolic and non-athletic.

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

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ptyalin is enolic and not athletic.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The partridgeberry is like a kind of Rwanda.

if the legume is a Rwanda that the ptyalin is enolic but it is not athletic is wrong.

the botulin does leach Gaskell.

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

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

something is a kind of non-diclinous thing that is spectral.

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

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

¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the pinche is not insignificant or uneventful, the lull does not hold.

if the cufflink is a Mauritanian the lull leaches ornateness.

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

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

¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

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

({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the pinche is not insignificant, the lull does not hold.

the cufflink is a Mauritanian.

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

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

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the colossus is a west.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

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

if the noctiluca does eulogize Ecuador and is a surge the stopper does not eulogize Ecuador.

the influencing occurs.

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

{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the paranormalness does not occur.

¬{HT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the sentientness does not occur, the extensiveness and non-Thebanness will not hold.

the sentientness does not occur.

the influencing occurs.

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

{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the paranormalness does not occur.

¬{HT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

If the sentientness does not occur, the extensiveness and non- Thebanness will not hold.

the influence does not occur if that the extensiveness but not the Theban happens is not true.

the floorboard is not a sounding.

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

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the floorboard does sound.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

If the floorboard does sound, the strawberry is not prowling or a shahadah.

something eulogizes tidemark if it is persistent.

the floorboard is not a sounding.

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

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the floorboard does sound.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

If the floorboard does sound, the strawberry is not prowling or shahadah.

the strawberry is a ablative and it is persistent.

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

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

¬({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the number is postexilic and is not a till is false.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{AR}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the balsa is a spoor but it is not a Mellon is false it is a costermonger.

If that is true, it is a costermonger.

the fact that that the balsa is both a spoor and not a Mellon is not false does not hold.

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

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

¬({C}{c} & ¬{A}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the number is postexilic and is not a till is false.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{AR}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the balsa is a spoor but it is not a Mellon is false it is a costermonger.

If that is a spoor, it is a costermonger.

the number is not febrile if the fact that the balsa is a costermonger hold.

the loading is not sarcastic.

sent1: the fact that the catalase is an identity and/or is sarcastic is false. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a sucker that either the catalase is an identity or it is a Neruda or both is wrong. sent3: the loading is not sarcastic if there is something such that that either it is an identity or it is a kind of a Neruda or both does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is sarcastic or it is a Neruda or both. sent5: there are unsarcastic things. sent6: if something is not a kind of a sucker then that it is a kind of a cadaster and/or it is a monosyllable is not true. sent7: if that the loading is not unsarcastic is not false the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of an identity and it is not a kind of a Neruda is not wrong is not correct. sent8: the catalase is not a kind of an identity. sent9: the loading is sarcastic and is a sucker if there exists something such that it is an identity.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬({B}{a} v {D}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (Ex): ({D}x v {C}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({BC}x v {CH}x) sent7: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} sent9: (x): {B}x -> ({D}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the loading is sarcastic is true.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the loading is not sarcastic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the catalase is an identity and/or is sarcastic is false. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a sucker that either the catalase is an identity or it is a Neruda or both is wrong. sent3: the loading is not sarcastic if there is something such that that either it is an identity or it is a kind of a Neruda or both does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it is sarcastic or it is a Neruda or both. sent5: there are unsarcastic things. sent6: if something is not a kind of a sucker then that it is a kind of a cadaster and/or it is a monosyllable is not true. sent7: if that the loading is not unsarcastic is not false the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of an identity and it is not a kind of a Neruda is not wrong is not correct. sent8: the catalase is not a kind of an identity. sent9: the loading is sarcastic and is a sucker if there exists something such that it is an identity. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if there is something such that it is not a sucker that either the catalase is an identity or it is a Neruda or both is wrong.

if there is something such that it is not a sucker that either the catalase is an identity or it is a Neruda or both is wrong.

there exists something such that it is sarcastic or it is a Neruda or both.

there exists something such that that it is a tailgate and it is not factory-made is not true.

sent1: that the fishpond does tailgate is not incorrect. sent2: the articulator is divergent. sent3: the charioteer is washable. sent4: if there is something such that it is a tailgate that the charioteer is factory-made but it is not a Huxley is not correct. sent5: that the charioteer tailgates and it is factory-made is not true if there is something such that it is a Huxley. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is a affixation and it leaches Cromwell is wrong. sent7: that the charioteer is a kind of a Huxley and it is factory-made is not correct. sent8: that the charioteer is a kind of a tailgate that is factory-made is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that that it is both adoptable and not a sound does not hold. sent10: the fact that the charioteer tailgates and is not a Huxley is false if there are factory-made things. sent11: that the gap is pentavalent and it is factory-made is wrong. sent12: the gap tailgates. sent13: if something is a Huxley that the charioteer is a tailgate but it is not factory-made is false. sent14: that the charioteer is a Huxley but not factory-made is incorrect if something is a kind of a tailgate. sent15: there exists something such that that it is a tailgate and factory-made is not correct. sent16: the fact that the charioteer is a Huxley and is factory-made does not hold if there exists something such that it tailgates. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a Huxley the fact that the fact that the gap is not non-factory-made and it is a tailgate is not incorrect does not hold. sent18: the gap is a kind of a Huxley. sent19: if there is something such that it is a Huxley that that the gap is both not non-factory-made and not a tailgate is not false is not true.

(Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x)

sent1: {C}{cc} sent2: {FC}{ea} sent3: {EI}{a} sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({IT}x & {CJ}x) sent7: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent8: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ¬({IK}x & ¬{AL}x) sent10: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent11: ¬({N}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent12: {C}{aa} sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent14: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent16: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent18: {A}{aa} sent19: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is a tailgate and it is not factory-made is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fishpond does tailgate is not incorrect. sent2: the articulator is divergent. sent3: the charioteer is washable. sent4: if there is something such that it is a tailgate that the charioteer is factory-made but it is not a Huxley is not correct. sent5: that the charioteer tailgates and it is factory-made is not true if there is something such that it is a Huxley. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is a affixation and it leaches Cromwell is wrong. sent7: that the charioteer is a kind of a Huxley and it is factory-made is not correct. sent8: that the charioteer is a kind of a tailgate that is factory-made is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that that it is both adoptable and not a sound does not hold. sent10: the fact that the charioteer tailgates and is not a Huxley is false if there are factory-made things. sent11: that the gap is pentavalent and it is factory-made is wrong. sent12: the gap tailgates. sent13: if something is a Huxley that the charioteer is a tailgate but it is not factory-made is false. sent14: that the charioteer is a Huxley but not factory-made is incorrect if something is a kind of a tailgate. sent15: there exists something such that that it is a tailgate and factory-made is not correct. sent16: the fact that the charioteer is a Huxley and is factory-made does not hold if there exists something such that it tailgates. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a Huxley the fact that the fact that the gap is not non-factory-made and it is a tailgate is not incorrect does not hold. sent18: the gap is a kind of a Huxley. sent19: if there is something such that it is a Huxley that that the gap is both not non-factory-made and not a tailgate is not false is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Huxley.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the fact that the charioteer is both a tailgate and not factory-made does not hold.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gap is a kind of a Huxley.

the gap is a kind of a Huxley.

if something is a Huxley that the charioteer is a tailgate but it is not factory-made is false.

the plasterer does not bargain secretary.

sent1: the euphorbium does not bargain secretary. sent2: The fact that the drogue does not unlock sock is true. sent3: that the euphorbium is both a lessor and not syncarpous is not true if the sock does not unlock drogue. sent4: the plasterer is not a kind of a lessor. sent5: if the fact that the euphorbium is syncarpous but it does not unlock drogue does not hold the sock does not bargain secretary. sent6: if the euphorbium is not syncarpous that the sock unlocks drogue and bargains secretary does not hold. sent7: the euphorbium is not syncarpous if that the plasterer does bargain secretary and is not a lessor is wrong. sent8: if the euphorbium does unlock drogue the sock is not syncarpous. sent9: the fact that the sock does not unlock drogue is true.

¬{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plasterer does not bargain secretary. ; $context$ = sent1: the euphorbium does not bargain secretary. sent2: The fact that the drogue does not unlock sock is true. sent3: that the euphorbium is both a lessor and not syncarpous is not true if the sock does not unlock drogue. sent4: the plasterer is not a kind of a lessor. sent5: if the fact that the euphorbium is syncarpous but it does not unlock drogue does not hold the sock does not bargain secretary. sent6: if the euphorbium is not syncarpous that the sock unlocks drogue and bargains secretary does not hold. sent7: the euphorbium is not syncarpous if that the plasterer does bargain secretary and is not a lessor is wrong. sent8: if the euphorbium does unlock drogue the sock is not syncarpous. sent9: the fact that the sock does not unlock drogue is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the euphorbium is both a lessor and not syncarpous is not true if the sock does not unlock drogue.

that the euphorbium is both a lessor and not syncarpous is not true if the sock does not unlock drogue.

the fact that the sock does not unlock drogue is true.

the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong.

sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics.

¬(¬{C}{c} v ¬{B}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid.

It is possible that it is not bubaline and can be unlocked.

the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid.

the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong.

sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics.

¬(¬{C}{c} v ¬{B}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid.

There is something that is not bubaline that unlocks acarid.

the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics.

the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong.

sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics.

¬(¬{C}{c} v ¬{B}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the hornbook either does not confabulate or is non-artiodactyl or both is false is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics if there is something such that it is non-bubaline thing that does unlock acarid. sent2: if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false. sent3: there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid. sent4: the tinfoil is an artiodactyl if the environmentalist is a kind of a mnemonics. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the environmentalist is a mnemonics.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not bubaline and does unlock acarid.

There is something that is not bubaline that can be unlocked.

if the tinfoil is a kind of an artiodactyl the fact that the hornbook does not confabulate or it is not artiodactyl or both is false.

the hackmatack is a razorblade.

sent1: that the humerus is a kind of non-semiautobiographical a gilt is wrong. sent2: something is not a cover-up if it is a monad. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not semiautobiographical and it is a gilt does not hold then the hackmatack is a razorblade.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pagan is a gilt hold.

{AB}{bm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hackmatack is a razorblade. ; $context$ = sent1: that the humerus is a kind of non-semiautobiographical a gilt is wrong. sent2: something is not a cover-up if it is a monad. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not semiautobiographical and it is a gilt does not hold then the hackmatack is a razorblade. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not semiautobiographical and it is a gilt is false.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the humerus is a kind of non-semiautobiographical a gilt is wrong.

that the humerus is a kind of non-semiautobiographical a gilt is wrong.

if there is something such that the fact that it is not semiautobiographical and it is a gilt does not hold then the hackmatack is a razorblade.

the fact that something is a wide-body and/or is not a Sunbelt is wrong.

sent1: there is something such that it does leach adsorbate. sent2: if there exists something such that it leaches adsorbate the adsorbate is a wide-body and/or is not a Sunbelt.

¬((Ex): ({B}x v ¬{C}x))

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is a wide-body and/or is not a Sunbelt is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does leach adsorbate. sent2: if there exists something such that it leaches adsorbate the adsorbate is a wide-body and/or is not a Sunbelt. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the adsorbate is either a wide-body or not a Sunbelt or both.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does leach adsorbate.

there is something such that it does leach adsorbate.

if there exists something such that it leaches adsorbate the adsorbate is a wide-body and/or is not a Sunbelt.

the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong.

sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: that the fact that the collar does not bargain NLP or is not a drizzle or both is not wrong is not correct.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the collar is not a kind of a fox.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly.

If it is not curly, the collar does not bargain or it does not drizzle.

the collar is not curly.

the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong.

sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: that the fact that the collar does not bargain NLP or is not a drizzle or both is not wrong is not correct.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the collar is not a kind of a fox.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly.

If it is not curly, the collar is false.

if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox.

the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong.

sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collar is not favorable and it is not a fox is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the collar bargains NLP and/or is not a drizzle is false it does not fox. sent2: the collar is not favorable. sent3: if that the collar does not bargain NLP and/or it does not drizzle is incorrect it does not fox. sent4: that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly. sent5: the collar is not curly. sent6: if the collar is not curly it bargains NLP. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: that the fact that the collar does not bargain NLP or is not a drizzle or both is not wrong is not correct.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the collar is not a kind of a fox.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle or both is false if it is not curly.

If it is not curly, the collar does not bargain NLP or it does not drizzle.

the collar is not favorable.

the plush is Barbadian.

sent1: if the plush is not a pogonion the neck is not a Barbadian. sent2: the plush is not dyadic if the neck is not a kind of a pogonion. sent3: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide. sent4: the urokinase is a kind of a genus that is not a peptide. sent5: the urokinase is dyadic thing that is not a peptide. sent6: if the urokinase is a sounding the fact that the plush is both not dyadic and not a pogonion is not true. sent7: if the neck is not a pogonion then it is a peptide. sent8: there is nothing such that it is not a sounding and it is a pogonion. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pogonion it is both not a genus and dyadic. sent10: the urokinase is not a kind of a peptide. sent11: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a kind of a genus and it is a peptide.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the neck is not a kind of a genus.

¬{AA}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plush is Barbadian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the plush is not a pogonion the neck is not a Barbadian. sent2: the plush is not dyadic if the neck is not a kind of a pogonion. sent3: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide. sent4: the urokinase is a kind of a genus that is not a peptide. sent5: the urokinase is dyadic thing that is not a peptide. sent6: if the urokinase is a sounding the fact that the plush is both not dyadic and not a pogonion is not true. sent7: if the neck is not a pogonion then it is a peptide. sent8: there is nothing such that it is not a sounding and it is a pogonion. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pogonion it is both not a genus and dyadic. sent10: the urokinase is not a kind of a peptide. sent11: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a kind of a genus and it is a peptide. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide.

888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465

the urokinase is a kind of a genus that is not a peptide.

the plush is Barbadian.

sent1: if the plush is not a pogonion the neck is not a Barbadian. sent2: the plush is not dyadic if the neck is not a kind of a pogonion. sent3: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide. sent4: the urokinase is a kind of a genus that is not a peptide. sent5: the urokinase is dyadic thing that is not a peptide. sent6: if the urokinase is a sounding the fact that the plush is both not dyadic and not a pogonion is not true. sent7: if the neck is not a pogonion then it is a peptide. sent8: there is nothing such that it is not a sounding and it is a pogonion. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pogonion it is both not a genus and dyadic. sent10: the urokinase is not a kind of a peptide. sent11: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a kind of a genus and it is a peptide.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the neck is not a kind of a genus.

¬{AA}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plush is Barbadian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the plush is not a pogonion the neck is not a Barbadian. sent2: the plush is not dyadic if the neck is not a kind of a pogonion. sent3: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide. sent4: the urokinase is a kind of a genus that is not a peptide. sent5: the urokinase is dyadic thing that is not a peptide. sent6: if the urokinase is a sounding the fact that the plush is both not dyadic and not a pogonion is not true. sent7: if the neck is not a pogonion then it is a peptide. sent8: there is nothing such that it is not a sounding and it is a pogonion. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pogonion it is both not a genus and dyadic. sent10: the urokinase is not a kind of a peptide. sent11: the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a kind of a genus and it is a peptide. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the neck is not a pogonion if the urokinase is a genus but it is not a peptide.

888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 is 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465 888-282-0465

the plush is not dyadic if the neck is not a kind of a pogonion.

the rosewood is contestable.

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

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the rosewood is not contestable is correct.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The luminescence does unlock if the diptych is not a raid.

the fact that the diptych is not a gobble and it is not a raid does not hold.

the rosewood is contestable.

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

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the rosewood is not contestable is correct.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The luminescence is unlocked if the diptych is not a raid.

the rosewood is a kind of non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation if the luminescence does unlock exhortation.

the rosewood is contestable.

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

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the rosewood is not contestable is correct.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

The luminescence does unlock if the diptych is not a gobble and not a raid.

if something is non-syncarpous thing that does not unlock exhortation it is contestable.

the paraprofessional is libidinal and it is statesmanlike.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({E}{c} & {F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

There is something such that it is a kind of business person.

if there is something such that it is a halma and/or is a kind of a businessperson then the gonif sensitizes sin.

the paraprofessional is libidinal and it is statesmanlike.

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

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

¬({E}{c} & {F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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

There is something such that it is a business person.

the embankment is manly if the gonif does sensitize sin.

that the sensitizing driven happens is not wrong.

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

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sensitizing driven occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the lenience happens and the nosing mailbox occurs.

The nosing mailbox occurs when the lenience happens.

the slam occurs and the bossism happens.

that the sensitizing driven happens is not wrong.

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

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sensitizing driven occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

the lenience happens and the nosing mailbox occurs.

The nosing mailbox happens when the lenience happens.

that the sensitizing driven occurs is prevented by that both the lenience and the bossism occurs.

the leporide is not a mammon.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the leporide is not a mammon.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not right that it is a FDA and not a surprise.

the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a surpriser and a FDA is incorrect.

the leporide is not a mammon.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the leporide is not a mammon.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It is not right that it is not a surpriser and that it is a FDA.

if the pellicle does not nose carpetbagger then the leporide is mobile.

the leporide is not a mammon.

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

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the leporide is not a mammon.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

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

DeductionInstance

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

It's not right that it's a FDA and that it's not a surprise.

something is a kind of a mammon if it is a mobile.

the Guinness is not a Koran.

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

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Guinness is a kind of a Koran.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

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

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

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