Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

there exists something such that that it is a etude and it does not swab pulverization is not true.

sent1: the argasid does not swab pulverization. sent2: the mandrill is non-full-time. sent3: if the pop-up is disreputable then the argasid is heedless and does not swab pulverization. sent4: the argasid is a limbed and does not swab pulverization. sent5: the fact that the argasid is a etude that does swab pulverization is not true. sent6: there is something such that it does equate omnipotence and is not a downhill.

(Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the backlog is unorthodox but it is not a kind of a etude is not right.

¬({EE}{fe} & ¬{A}{fe})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is a etude and it does not swab pulverization is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the argasid does not swab pulverization. sent2: the mandrill is non-full-time. sent3: if the pop-up is disreputable then the argasid is heedless and does not swab pulverization. sent4: the argasid is a limbed and does not swab pulverization. sent5: the fact that the argasid is a etude that does swab pulverization is not true. sent6: there is something such that it does equate omnipotence and is not a downhill. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nativistness does not occur.

sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ({R} & ¬{Q}) -> {P} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {O} -> (¬{M} & {N}) sent5: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent6: {A} sent7: {H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: {I} -> {H} sent9: {EC} sent10: ¬{BA} sent11: (¬{M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent12: {P} -> {O} sent13: ¬{IT} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent15: ¬{K} -> ({I} & ¬{J}) sent16: ({AQ} & {AO}) sent17: {B} sent18: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E}

PROVED

PROVED

the nativistness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nativistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent17 -> int1: the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the equating Verdicchio happens.

Verdicchio is equating.

the epigastricness happens.

the nativistness does not occur.

sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ({R} & ¬{Q}) -> {P} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {O} -> (¬{M} & {N}) sent5: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent6: {A} sent7: {H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: {I} -> {H} sent9: {EC} sent10: ¬{BA} sent11: (¬{M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} sent12: {P} -> {O} sent13: ¬{IT} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent15: ¬{K} -> ({I} & ¬{J}) sent16: ({AQ} & {AO}) sent17: {B} sent18: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E}

PROVED

PROVED

the nativistness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nativistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the volution happens and the admitting Meniscium does not occur the paleontologicalness occurs. sent2: that the incorporation does not occur is caused by the non-endogenicness. sent3: that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs. sent4: that the literariness does not occur but the evisceration happens is brought about by the equating solicitor. sent5: if the manicure does not occur then not the epigastricness but the allylicness occurs. sent6: the equating Verdicchio happens. sent7: if the swabbing rate happens the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not right. sent8: if the submissiveness occurs then the swabbing rate happens. sent9: the mull occurs. sent10: the fact that the equating comicality does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endogenicness happens is prevented by that the literariness does not occur and the evisceration happens. sent12: if the paleontologicalness happens the equating solicitor happens. sent13: that the fact that the cannibalisticness happens is wrong is correct. sent14: that the nativistness and the equating Verdicchio happens is not wrong if the epigastricness does not occur. sent15: that the submissiveness happens and the straying does not occur is triggered by that the incorporation does not occur. sent16: the actinomycetalness happens and the professorialness occurs. sent17: the epigastricness happens. sent18: if the fact that the preferment but not the kindling happens is not true the manicure does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent17 -> int1: the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the equating Verdicchio happens.

The equating happens.

that the nativist does not occur is brought about by that the equating Verdicchio and the epigastricness occurs.

the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade does not hold.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 -> int1: the monotheist is not a shiftlessness.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum.

The monotheist is not a kind of shiftlessness if it is a sir.

the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum.

the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade does not hold.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pottle does not overhang and it is not a Rollerblade. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a shiftlessness and is polymorphic is incorrect it is a kind of a shiftlessness. sent2: if the bar is not a kind of a Auvergne then it is not a fast and it is a kind of a footnote. sent3: the bar is not a Auvergne. sent4: if there is something such that it is a kind of non-fast a footnote the Sadducee admits rigging. sent5: if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness the pottle does not overhang. sent6: the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness. sent7: the core is exacta and it admits appetizer. sent8: if something admits rigging it is a probable. sent9: if that the monotheist does not swab Anethum hold the pottle is not a kind of a sir and it is not a kind of a Rollerblade. sent10: the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum. sent11: the monotheist does swab Anethum. sent12: the monotheist is a kind of a sir that swabs Anethum. sent13: the pottle is not an overhang. sent14: the pottle is not a kind of a sir if it is an overhang that is a shiftlessness. sent15: if the conductress is a kind of a shiftlessness the monotheist is an overhang. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a probable that the conductress is both not a shiftlessness and polymorphic is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 -> int1: the monotheist is not a shiftlessness.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the monotheist is not a kind of a shiftlessness if it is a sir and does swab Anethum.

The monotheist is not shiftlessness if it is a sir.

the pottle is not an overhang and is not a Rollerblade if the monotheist is not a shiftlessness.

the Ichyostega is crustaceous.

sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Ichyostega is crustaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a kind of a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.; sent5 & sent1 -> int2: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Viola is not fishy.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.

If that does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark, then it is not a problem.

that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet.

the Ichyostega is crustaceous.

sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Ichyostega is crustaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a kind of a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.; sent5 & sent1 -> int2: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Viola is not fishy.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.

If that doesn't admit crabbiness and it's not a meadowlark, then it's fine.

the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct.

the Ichyostega is crustaceous.

sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Ichyostega is crustaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Viola is not a brooklet is correct. sent2: if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy. sent3: something is not fishy if it is a kind of a meadowlark. sent4: the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy. sent5: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is false if it is not a brooklet. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a kind of a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.; sent5 & sent1 -> int2: that the Viola does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Viola is not fishy.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark is incorrect then it is not fishy.

If that does not admit crabbiness and it is not a meadowlark, then it is not fishy.

the Ichyostega is crustaceous if the Viola is not fishy.

that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold.

sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: that the Shakers is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Shakers is not a diploid.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius.

There is no such thing as a bohemia and abecedarius.

the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect.

that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold.

sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the beading is a prescription but it is not diploid does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right. sent2: the Shakers is not a diploid if the fact that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is incorrect. sent3: there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: that the Shakers is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Shakers is not a diploid.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is a bohemia and it is a abecedarius.

There is no such thing as a bohemia and a abecedarius.

that the beading is not nonprescription but it is not a diploid is not correct if that the Shakers is not diploid is right.

the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse.

sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse. ; $context$ = sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff.

It is not a quiff if a callithumpian thing enjoys it.

if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys.

the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse.

sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pardoner is not a quiff but it is a tawse. ; $context$ = sent1: the pardoner is not a rune. sent2: if the Guarnerius is not a rune then it is callithumpian and enjoys. sent3: the yanker is not a kind of a tawse if the fact that the lantana does heel but it is not palmar does not hold. sent4: the Guarnerius is not a kind of a tawse. sent5: that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold. sent6: the lantana swabs Guarnerius if it is not resistless. sent7: the pardoner is not part-time. sent8: the pardoner does not enjoy if it is both a rune and a tawse. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tawse is not false then that the conservative does not swab spelter is not right. sent10: the pardoner is not a quiff. sent11: if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff. sent12: that something is not a quiff but a tawse is not true if it is a kind of a rune. sent13: that the antivenin is a tawse is not incorrect. sent14: the pardoner is palmar and it is a rune if the yanker is not a kind of a heel. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it is not a quiff.

It is not a quiff if a callithumpian thing does enjoy it.

that the Guarnerius is not a rune hold.

the thermometer is octal.

sent1: if something that transfers twinberry is not vulvar it is octal. sent2: the thermometer is octal if it does transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent3: the thermometer does not transfer twinberry. sent4: everything is not nonextant. sent5: the circumference is not vulvar. sent6: something is octal if it does not transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent7: if the thermometer does transfer twinberry then the boiling is nonextant. sent8: something is not octal and not nonextant if it is a coquille. sent9: the fact that the thermometer transfers twinberry but it is not vulvar does not hold. sent10: the boiling is not vulvar.

{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the thermometer is not octal.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thermometer is octal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that transfers twinberry is not vulvar it is octal. sent2: the thermometer is octal if it does transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent3: the thermometer does not transfer twinberry. sent4: everything is not nonextant. sent5: the circumference is not vulvar. sent6: something is octal if it does not transfer twinberry and is not vulvar. sent7: if the thermometer does transfer twinberry then the boiling is nonextant. sent8: something is not octal and not nonextant if it is a coquille. sent9: the fact that the thermometer transfers twinberry but it is not vulvar does not hold. sent10: the boiling is not vulvar. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is not nonextant.

everything is not nonextant.

something is octal if it does not transfer twinberry and is not vulvar.

the Victorian occurs.

sent1: the grudging meed occurs if the transferring interposition but not the whist happens. sent2: the diametricness or the traditionalism or both occurs. sent3: if either the transferring interposition or the whist or both happens the Victorianness does not occur. sent4: the whist happens. sent5: the affliction and/or the bonanza occurs. sent6: the spruce does not occur. sent7: that the retrieval and the Victorian occurs is caused by that the tabulation does not occur. sent8: either the illiterateness happens or the oppression occurs or both. sent9: the Victorian does not occur if the transferring interposition happens.

{C}

sent1: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> {ER} sent2: ({DO} v {AA}) sent3: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {B} sent5: ({CE} v {DT}) sent6: ¬{JC} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent8: ({GS} v {IF}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{C}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the grudging meed occurs.

{ER}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Victorian occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the grudging meed occurs if the transferring interposition but not the whist happens. sent2: the diametricness or the traditionalism or both occurs. sent3: if either the transferring interposition or the whist or both happens the Victorianness does not occur. sent4: the whist happens. sent5: the affliction and/or the bonanza occurs. sent6: the spruce does not occur. sent7: that the retrieval and the Victorian occurs is caused by that the tabulation does not occur. sent8: either the illiterateness happens or the oppression occurs or both. sent9: the Victorian does not occur if the transferring interposition happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the transferring interposition and/or the whist happens.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the whist happens.

the whist happens.

if either the transferring interposition or the whist or both happens the Victorianness does not occur.

there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore.

sent1: if the archerfish is not a kind of a thysanuron but it is a plastered it is not a Mastigophora. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-urethral thing that is antiadrenergic then the fact that it is not a praetorium is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not improbable and it is a gastroscope then it is not a partial. sent4: the fact that if something does not cull tenoroon and is a Mastigophora then it does restore is right. sent5: if something does cull tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora then it does not restore. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter and it is a Plavix then that it is not a kind of a Boyne is not incorrect. sent8: the brocade does not transfer orology if it is not a Adiantum and it restores. sent9: the LAN does not restore if it is not antiadrenergic and is a humanness. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not cull brocade and it is existent then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a fiance and eusporangiate it does not cull ecclesiology. sent12: if the LAN is not a Toulon but it does cull tenoroon it is not malignant. sent13: the fact that the pachycephalosaur is not exoergic is right if it does not transfer LAN and is a Mastigophora. sent14: if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore. sent15: if the LAN culls tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent16: that there is something such that if that it does not grudge silicate and it is not non-alternating hold then it does not hunger is correct. sent17: there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora it restores.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (¬{JK}{ar} & {EI}{ar}) -> ¬{AB}{ar} sent2: (Ex): (¬{HR}x & {FD}x) -> ¬{ES}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{F}x & {IH}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{CN}x & {CK}x) -> ¬{GO}x sent8: (¬{GL}{am} & {B}{am}) -> ¬{IF}{am} sent9: (¬{FD}{aa} & {JE}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{FG}x & {BU}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{EP}x & {AM}x) -> ¬{HM}x sent12: (¬{EE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{GF}{aa} sent13: (¬{EO}{gm} & {AB}{gm}) -> ¬{DM}{gm} sent14: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent15: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent16: (Ex): (¬{DG}x & {CS}x) -> ¬{AL}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. ; $context$ = sent1: if the archerfish is not a kind of a thysanuron but it is a plastered it is not a Mastigophora. sent2: there exists something such that if it is non-urethral thing that is antiadrenergic then the fact that it is not a praetorium is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not improbable and it is a gastroscope then it is not a partial. sent4: the fact that if something does not cull tenoroon and is a Mastigophora then it does restore is right. sent5: if something does cull tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora then it does not restore. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a splinter and it is a Plavix then that it is not a kind of a Boyne is not incorrect. sent8: the brocade does not transfer orology if it is not a Adiantum and it restores. sent9: the LAN does not restore if it is not antiadrenergic and is a humanness. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not cull brocade and it is existent then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent11: there exists something such that if it is both not a fiance and eusporangiate it does not cull ecclesiology. sent12: if the LAN is not a Toulon but it does cull tenoroon it is not malignant. sent13: the fact that the pachycephalosaur is not exoergic is right if it does not transfer LAN and is a Mastigophora. sent14: if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore. sent15: if the LAN culls tenoroon and it is a kind of a Mastigophora it does not restore. sent16: that there is something such that if that it does not grudge silicate and it is not non-alternating hold then it does not hunger is correct. sent17: there is something such that if it does not cull tenoroon and it is a Mastigophora it restores. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore.

if the LAN does not cull tenoroon but it is a Mastigophora it does restore.

the fact that the pachycephalosaur is not exoergic is right if it does not transfer LAN and is a Mastigophora.

the luge is a tattler.

sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right.

{E}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the mastocyte does cull coiner or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.

¬({HU}{bi} v {C}{bi})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the luge is a tattler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the knee is not a decile.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the knee is a Austronesian or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic.

It is not nonphotosynthetic.

if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile.

the luge is a tattler.

sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right.

{E}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the mastocyte does cull coiner or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.

¬({HU}{bi} v {C}{bi})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the luge is a tattler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the knee is not a decile.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the knee is a Austronesian or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic.

There is something that is nonphotosynthetic.

if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right.

the luge is a tattler.

sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right.

{E}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the mastocyte does cull coiner or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.

¬({HU}{bi} v {C}{bi})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the luge is a tattler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ramp does cull Papio then the coiner does transfer roughleg. sent2: if something is not nonphotosynthetic the knee is not a decile. sent3: if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler. sent4: if something is not nonphotosynthetic then that it does cull coiner and/or it is a oilskin is incorrect. sent5: if the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig then that the tuck is not a tattler and is a confusion is not right. sent6: if something does transfer roughleg it does not transfer lateen-rig. sent7: if the coiner does not transfer lateen-rig the abattoir does not transfer lateen-rig. sent8: there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic. sent9: that the knee is a decile but it is not nonphotosynthetic is not right if the luge is not a Austronesian. sent10: if the knee is not a decile then the fact that it is Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the knee is not a decile.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: that the knee is a Austronesian or it is a oilskin or both does not hold.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not nonphotosynthetic.

There is something that is not nonphotosynthetic.

if the fact that the knee is a kind of a Austronesian and/or it is a oilskin does not hold the luge is not a kind of a tattler.

the fact that the path pelts hold.

sent1: something is not a Iroquoian and it is not a beep if it does not recriminate. sent2: the predator culls Boehmenism and is not a dustcloth. sent3: that the path does not pelt and it is not smaller is false if it is not a kind of a water. sent4: that the path is a kind of non-smaller thing that does not pelt is not right. sent5: the fact that the path does not recriminate and does not pelt is wrong. sent6: something transfers histone and is not a kind of a particularism if it is not a beep. sent7: the path does pelt if that the tulip is not a Tanzanian and it is not a water is not right. sent8: the fact that the titterer is a crag that does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it cull Boehmenism is not incorrect. sent9: if the jilt is not cathectic then the palette is not cathectic. sent10: if something does not grudge do-si-do and transfers verbolatry the Chardonnay does not recriminate. sent11: if the Chardonnay is not a Iroquoian and not a beep then the jilt does not beep. sent12: that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct. sent13: if the histone is a kind of a crag then the priestess does not grudge do-si-do but it does transfer verbolatry. sent14: if that the tulip does not pelt and is not anal is false then the path does not pelt. sent15: if something does transfer histone and is not a particularism then it is not cathectic. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a stonecrop then the hub is anal and smaller. sent17: the tulip pelts if the path is Tanzanian. sent18: the path waters. sent19: the histone is a crag if the fact that the titterer is a crag but it does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect. sent20: if that the palette is cathectic is not wrong that it is a kind of a stonecrop is correct. sent21: the tulip is not smaller.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the path does not pelt is true.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the path pelts hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a Iroquoian and it is not a beep if it does not recriminate. sent2: the predator culls Boehmenism and is not a dustcloth. sent3: that the path does not pelt and it is not smaller is false if it is not a kind of a water. sent4: that the path is a kind of non-smaller thing that does not pelt is not right. sent5: the fact that the path does not recriminate and does not pelt is wrong. sent6: something transfers histone and is not a kind of a particularism if it is not a beep. sent7: the path does pelt if that the tulip is not a Tanzanian and it is not a water is not right. sent8: the fact that the titterer is a crag that does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect if there exists something such that the fact that it cull Boehmenism is not incorrect. sent9: if the jilt is not cathectic then the palette is not cathectic. sent10: if something does not grudge do-si-do and transfers verbolatry the Chardonnay does not recriminate. sent11: if the Chardonnay is not a Iroquoian and not a beep then the jilt does not beep. sent12: that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct. sent13: if the histone is a kind of a crag then the priestess does not grudge do-si-do but it does transfer verbolatry. sent14: if that the tulip does not pelt and is not anal is false then the path does not pelt. sent15: if something does transfer histone and is not a particularism then it is not cathectic. sent16: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a stonecrop then the hub is anal and smaller. sent17: the tulip pelts if the path is Tanzanian. sent18: the path waters. sent19: the histone is a crag if the fact that the titterer is a crag but it does not cull Boehmenism is incorrect. sent20: if that the palette is cathectic is not wrong that it is a kind of a stonecrop is correct. sent21: the tulip is not smaller. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct.

that the tulip does not water and does not pelt is not correct.

the predator culls Boehmenism and is not a dustcloth.

the grudging cocker does not occur.

sent1: that the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both does not hold. sent2: the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true. sent3: that the slurping does not occur but the transferring carcinoid occurs is caused by the academicianship. sent4: the fact that that the transferring carcinoid happens leads to that the grudging Bosporus or the non-losslessness or both happens hold. sent5: the thrombectomy and the suctorialness occurs if the bellylessness does not occur. sent6: if the suctorialness does not occur then that the grudging cocker does not occur and/or the thrombectomy happens is incorrect. sent7: that the bellylessness occurs is prevented by that the grudging Bosporus happens and/or that the losslessness does not occur. sent8: the odyssey does not occur. sent9: that the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty occurs or both does not hold if the odyssey happens. sent10: the grudging cocker is prevented by that not the odyssey but the thrombectomy occurs.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent3: {J} -> (¬{I} & {H}) sent4: {H} -> ({F} v ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent6: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} v {C}) sent7: ({F} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: {A} -> ¬(¬{AR} v {CB}) sent10: (¬{A} & {C}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that either the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty happens or both is not correct.

¬(¬{AR} v {CB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging cocker does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both does not hold. sent2: the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true. sent3: that the slurping does not occur but the transferring carcinoid occurs is caused by the academicianship. sent4: the fact that that the transferring carcinoid happens leads to that the grudging Bosporus or the non-losslessness or both happens hold. sent5: the thrombectomy and the suctorialness occurs if the bellylessness does not occur. sent6: if the suctorialness does not occur then that the grudging cocker does not occur and/or the thrombectomy happens is incorrect. sent7: that the bellylessness occurs is prevented by that the grudging Bosporus happens and/or that the losslessness does not occur. sent8: the odyssey does not occur. sent9: that the iconolatry does not occur or the transferring penalty occurs or both does not hold if the odyssey happens. sent10: the grudging cocker is prevented by that not the odyssey but the thrombectomy occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true.

the grudging cocker occurs if that either the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both is not true.

that the outreach does not occur or the mastoidectomy occurs or both does not hold.

the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase.

sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the breechcloth is both a tichodrome and a collagenase.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase. ; $context$ = sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the testudo is not noncritical.; int1 -> int2: there are critical things.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true.

If the regent is a mange, the testudo is critical.

the regent scrapes and it is a mange.

the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase.

sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the breechcloth is both a tichodrome and a collagenase.

({A}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the breechcloth is a tichodrome and is a kind of a collagenase. ; $context$ = sent1: the regent scrapes and it is a mange. sent2: if that the regent is a collagenase and noncritical is incorrect then the rush is not a kind of a tichodrome. sent3: if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct. sent4: the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true. sent5: if the testudo is not a dustcloth that the regent is a collagenase and it is noncritical is wrong. sent6: if that that something is not a tichodrome and is a dustcloth is right is not correct it is a tichodrome. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the testudo is not noncritical.; int1 -> int2: there are critical things.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the testudo is not noncritical if the fact that the regent scrapes and is a mange is true.

If the regent is a mange, the testudo is not noncritical.

if something is not noncritical then the fact that the breechcloth is a kind of a tichodrome and it is a collagenase is not correct.

there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital.

sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true.

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

sent1: (Ex): {BJ}x sent2: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {DL}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{FS}x & ¬{IM}x) -> {FS}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{HO}x & {IL}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{HK}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: {E}{d} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent8: ¬({G}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent9: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({I}{e} v ¬{F}{e}) sent10: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent11: (x): ({I}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{HK}x & ¬{B}x) -> {HK}x sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}x & {D}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{CK}x & {BB}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent19: {FQ}{bd} sent20: (Ex): ¬{J}x sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dhak is a fortune and it transfers Gesner.

({HK}{a} & {DL}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct.

A still is correct if something is a quoin.

there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect.

there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital.

sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true.

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

sent1: (Ex): {BJ}x sent2: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {DL}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{FS}x & ¬{IM}x) -> {FS}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{HO}x & {IL}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{HK}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: {E}{d} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent8: ¬({G}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent9: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({I}{e} v ¬{F}{e}) sent10: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent11: (x): ({I}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{HK}x & ¬{B}x) -> {HK}x sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}x & {D}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{CK}x & {BB}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent19: {FQ}{bd} sent20: (Ex): ¬{J}x sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dhak is a fortune and it transfers Gesner.

({HK}{a} & {DL}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a kind of a still that is cubital. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it culls fugacity is right. sent2: if the megestrol is not a quoin and it is not cubital the dhak does transfer Gesner. sent3: the dhak is a argil if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a argil and it does not transfer caffeinism is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not transfer awfulness and it does cull ecclesiology does not hold. sent5: there is something such that that it is not cubital and it is not a kind of a saguaro is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the dhak is not a fortune and is not a kind of a still is false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Vidua is right. sent7: if the T-network is a saguaro then the megestrol is not a kind of a quoin and it is not cubital. sent8: if that the delft is a kleptomaniac and it is a Vidua is incorrect the cavalryman is not a Vidua. sent9: if there is something such that it does not grudge bookmark then the delft is a tang and/or not a ancestress. sent10: the dhak is a kind of a quoin if there is something such that it is an embrace. sent11: if something is a tang or it is not a ancestress or both it is not a ancestress. sent12: something is a kind of a fortune if that it is not a fortune and not a still is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a ancestress then that it is both a kleptomaniac and a Vidua is false. sent14: there is something such that that it is not vascular and it does embrace is incorrect. sent15: something is a kind of non-vascular thing that is not a kind of an embrace. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not subsonic and does grudge wolffish is not right. sent18: that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct. sent19: the gamma-interferon does cull cavalryman. sent20: there exists something such that it does not grudge bookmark. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not vascular and it does not embrace is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that something that is a quoin is a kind of a still is correct.

A quoin is a kind of still.

if there is something such that the fact that it is not cubital and it is not a saguaro is false then the dhak is cubital.

the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon.

sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the hewer is a brassiere and is a Ruptiliocarpon is incorrect.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the hewer is a brassiere.; sent9 -> int2: the hewer is a Ruptiliocarpon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician.

The hewer is a kind of brassiere.

the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect.

the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon.

sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the hewer is a brassiere and is a Ruptiliocarpon is incorrect.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewer is a brassiere that is a Ruptiliocarpon. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not cull nasion. sent2: the fact that the nasion grudges Galician is not incorrect. sent3: the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician. sent4: that something does not grudge Galician and transfers wolffish is not right if it does not transfer barnburner. sent5: if the fact that the nasion does not grudge Galician but it transfers wolffish does not hold the hewer does not grudge Galician. sent6: if the fact that there is something such that that it does correlate and it does transfer gorge is wrong is right the frump is not a myringotomy. sent7: if something does not cull nasion the fact that it is a correlate and transfers gorge does not hold. sent8: The fact that the Galician grudges nasion is not incorrect. sent9: the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon. sent10: the nasion does not transfer barnburner if there is something such that it is not a myringotomy. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the hewer is a brassiere.; sent9 -> int2: the hewer is a Ruptiliocarpon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hewer is a kind of a brassiere if the nasion grudges Galician.

If the nasion dislikes Galician, the hewer is a kind of brassiere.

the hewer does transfer barnburner and is a Ruptiliocarpon.

the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital.

sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Philippians is not suborbital.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the Philippians transfers lodgment but it is not anticlimactic.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the Philippians is non-anticlimactic is not wrong.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an inflow.

Something is moving.

if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic.

the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital.

sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Philippians is not suborbital.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riddle is not acetylenic but it is suborbital. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an inflow. sent2: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic the fact that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital does not hold. sent3: the Philippians transfers lodgment if there exists something such that it is an inflow. sent4: if the photograph is prognathous that it is a lockup is correct. sent5: if the warhorse is not an inflow then the fact that the Philippians is not an inflow is not false. sent6: the riddle is not acetylenic and is suborbital if the Philippians is not an inflow. sent7: the Philippians does transfer lodgment. sent8: that the riddle is acetylenic thing that is suborbital is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is an inflow the Philippians transfers lodgment and is not anticlimactic. sent10: if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right. sent11: if that something is acetylenic but it is not a lockup is wrong it is not non-anticlimactic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the Philippians transfers lodgment but it is not anticlimactic.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the Philippians is non-anticlimactic is not wrong.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an inflow.

Something is flowing.

if the Philippians is not anticlimactic that the riddle is both not acetylenic and suborbital is not right.

that the webbing happens is not incorrect.

sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the reorganizing happens.

{P}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the webbing happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the swish occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the transferring bearer occurs is right.; sent16 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs.

It 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217 800-273-3217

if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs.

that the webbing happens is not incorrect.

sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the reorganizing happens.

{P}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the webbing happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the electrochemicalness does not occur is correct the fact that the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not true. sent2: that the web does not occur is triggered by that not the swish but the transferring Musophagidae happens. sent3: if that both the phocineness and the chasteness occurs is not correct the phocineness does not occur. sent4: the basketry does not occur if the fact that both the basketry and the satiateness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the swish occurs then the transferring bearer occurs. sent6: the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent7: if the transferring bearer does not occur then either the transferring Musophagidae occurs or the swish occurs or both. sent8: that the basketry does not occur brings about that the electrochemicalness happens and the canalicularness occurs. sent9: the peregrination does not occur and the amminoness happens if the fact that the grudging response does not occur hold. sent10: that the chasteness does not occur is prevented by that the electrochemicalness happens. sent11: if the amminoness happens not the web but the peregrination occurs. sent12: if the web does not occur but the peregrination happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. sent13: if the phocineness does not occur that the amminoness happens and the grudging response occurs is not false. sent14: the canalicularness happens but the electrochemicalness does not occur if the basketry does not occur. sent15: the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs. sent16: if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens. sent17: if the peregrination does not occur but the amminoness happens then the transferring bearer does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the swish occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the transferring bearer occurs is right.; sent16 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swish and the transferring Musophagidae occurs.

The transfer of Musophagidae occurs.

if the transferring bearer happens then the webbing happens.

the congressman is a kind of a anticlimax.

sent1: if that the congressman is not a dika and it is not elastic is not correct it is not a anticlimax. sent2: if something is not a Phocoena it is not a Turfan and does wrong. sent3: the congressman does not channelize if it is onymous. sent4: that the congressman is both not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false. sent5: if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax. sent6: the track is not a anticlimax. sent7: the congressman is not a kind of a anticlimax if it is a methyl. sent8: the leg is not a Alaskan if that it is both not a anticlimax and not tectonic does not hold. sent9: the congressman is not geostrategic if the fact that it is not a venison and it is not a lordship does not hold.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬(¬{AO}{a} & ¬{IT}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent3: {EB}{a} -> ¬{JB}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{bh} sent7: {AI}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{af} & ¬{HU}{af}) -> ¬{FC}{af} sent9: ¬(¬{FS}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{HQ}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the congressman is a anticlimax.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the congressman is a kind of a anticlimax. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the congressman is not a dika and it is not elastic is not correct it is not a anticlimax. sent2: if something is not a Phocoena it is not a Turfan and does wrong. sent3: the congressman does not channelize if it is onymous. sent4: that the congressman is both not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false. sent5: if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax. sent6: the track is not a anticlimax. sent7: the congressman is not a kind of a anticlimax if it is a methyl. sent8: the leg is not a Alaskan if that it is both not a anticlimax and not tectonic does not hold. sent9: the congressman is not geostrategic if the fact that it is not a venison and it is not a lordship does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax.

if the fact that the congressman is not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false it is not a anticlimax.

that the congressman is both not a lordship and not cytoplasmic is false.

that the cabaret is a trove but it is not Paleozoic is wrong.

sent1: something is esoteric if it is Baltic. sent2: the cabaret is not a Baltic. sent3: something does not phrase if it is not esoteric. sent4: that the cabaret is both Paleozoic and not esoteric is not correct if the whiner is not a phrasing. sent5: if something is disrespectful it is pyroelectric. sent6: the whiner is esoteric. sent7: if the whiner is not a kind of a phrasing then that the cabaret is a kind of a trove and it is a Paleozoic is not correct. sent8: if the cabaret is esoteric then it is a kind of a trove and it is not a kind of a Paleozoic. sent9: if the sunray is pyroelectric then the whiner is not a kind of a poilu and/or it does phrase. sent10: the whiner is a Baltic. sent11: the whiner does not phrase if that it is not esoteric is right. sent12: if that something is esoteric but it is not a kind of a Baltic is not correct then it does not phrase. sent13: that the cabaret is a trove and it is a kind of a Paleozoic is false. sent14: the cloisonne is non-Paleozoic if the fact that the whiner is not a non-Paleozoic and is not a Baltic does not hold. sent15: the whiner is not Paleozoic.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the cloisonne is not a Paleozoic hold.

¬{E}{gi}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cabaret is a trove but it is not Paleozoic is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is esoteric if it is Baltic. sent2: the cabaret is not a Baltic. sent3: something does not phrase if it is not esoteric. sent4: that the cabaret is both Paleozoic and not esoteric is not correct if the whiner is not a phrasing. sent5: if something is disrespectful it is pyroelectric. sent6: the whiner is esoteric. sent7: if the whiner is not a kind of a phrasing then that the cabaret is a kind of a trove and it is a Paleozoic is not correct. sent8: if the cabaret is esoteric then it is a kind of a trove and it is not a kind of a Paleozoic. sent9: if the sunray is pyroelectric then the whiner is not a kind of a poilu and/or it does phrase. sent10: the whiner is a Baltic. sent11: the whiner does not phrase if that it is not esoteric is right. sent12: if that something is esoteric but it is not a kind of a Baltic is not correct then it does not phrase. sent13: that the cabaret is a trove and it is a kind of a Paleozoic is false. sent14: the cloisonne is non-Paleozoic if the fact that the whiner is not a non-Paleozoic and is not a Baltic does not hold. sent15: the whiner is not Paleozoic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the whiner is a Baltic.

the whiner is a Baltic.

if that something is esoteric but it is not a kind of a Baltic is not correct then it does not phrase.

the proposition happens.

sent1: the opening occurs if the sway happens. sent2: the fact that the Russianness does not occur and the algebraicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the sulcateness happens but the culling betrayal does not occur is false if the updating does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the openness occurs is not incorrect the updating does not occur. sent5: the approval does not occur. sent6: both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens. sent7: the fact that the culling LGV does not occur is right. sent8: if the soloing does not occur then the chancing does not occur but the proposition occurs. sent9: the inquiry occurs and the propositioning does not occur if the chancing occurs. sent10: if the sinkableness does not occur both the chance and the soloing happens. sent11: if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right. sent12: if that the sulcateness but not the culling betrayal occurs does not hold then that the sinkableness does not occur is not incorrect.

{A}

sent1: {I} -> {H} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent4: {H} -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{GP} sent6: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent7: ¬{FR} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent9: {B} -> ({HU} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the propositioning happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the proposition happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the opening occurs if the sway happens. sent2: the fact that the Russianness does not occur and the algebraicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the sulcateness happens but the culling betrayal does not occur is false if the updating does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the openness occurs is not incorrect the updating does not occur. sent5: the approval does not occur. sent6: both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens. sent7: the fact that the culling LGV does not occur is right. sent8: if the soloing does not occur then the chancing does not occur but the proposition occurs. sent9: the inquiry occurs and the propositioning does not occur if the chancing occurs. sent10: if the sinkableness does not occur both the chance and the soloing happens. sent11: if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right. sent12: if that the sulcateness but not the culling betrayal occurs does not hold then that the sinkableness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the proposition happens.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is incorrect.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right.

if the proposition occurs then that both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens is not right.

both the non-Russianness and the non-algebraicness happens.

the transferring frump does not occur.

sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent2: ¬({F} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent4: {A} -> {D} sent5: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{A} & {C}) sent7: ¬{I} -> ¬({F} & {H}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {I}) sent10: ¬{B} -> {C} sent11: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{FK} sent12: {GA} sent13: ¬{IM} -> {HJ} sent14: ¬{A} -> {C} sent15: ¬{FT} sent16: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the transferring frump happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transferring frump does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur.

The adventitialness and obscurantism do not occur.

if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct.

the transferring frump does not occur.

sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent2: ¬({F} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent4: {A} -> {D} sent5: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{I} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{A} & {C}) sent7: ¬{I} -> ¬({F} & {H}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {I}) sent10: ¬{B} -> {C} sent11: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{FK} sent12: {GA} sent13: ¬{IM} -> {HJ} sent14: ¬{A} -> {C} sent15: ¬{FT} sent16: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the transferring frump happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transferring frump does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur. sent2: if that the fact that the mounting and the devoting thylacine occurs hold does not hold then the mounting does not occur. sent3: if the gothicness does not occur then both the obscurantism and the lamplight happens. sent4: if the adventitialness occurs then the transferring frump occurs. sent5: if that both the devoting mending and the witching happens is false the witching does not occur. sent6: if the gothicness does not occur then the non-adventitialness and the lamplight occurs. sent7: if the witching does not occur that both the mounting and the devoting thylacine happens does not hold. sent8: that the gothicness and the acting happens is incorrect if the mounting does not occur. sent9: that the devoting mending occurs and the witching occurs is wrong if the conductiveness does not occur. sent10: the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur. sent11: the culling track is prevented by that not the adventitialness but the obscurantism occurs. sent12: the transferring eraser happens. sent13: the comfort occurs if the bonfire does not occur. sent14: if the adventitialness does not occur the fact that the lamplight occurs is correct. sent15: the jihad does not occur. sent16: if that both the gothicness and the acting happens is wrong then the gothicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the adventitialness does not occur and/or the obscurantism does not occur.

The adventitialness doesn't happen and the obscurantism doesn't happen.

the lamplight happens if the obscurantism does not occur.

the chimericalness occurs.

sent1: if the decomposition does not occur then the Booleanness happens and the grudging shanghaier occurs. sent2: the fact that the betrothal occurs and the encephalography does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the grudging shanghaier happens the chimericalness occurs.

{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the chimericalness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chimericalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the decomposition does not occur then the Booleanness happens and the grudging shanghaier occurs. sent2: the fact that the betrothal occurs and the encephalography does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the grudging shanghaier happens the chimericalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong.

if the fact that the betrothal occurs but the encephalography does not occur is not true then the fact that the Booleanness does not occur is not wrong.

the fact that the betrothal occurs and the encephalography does not occur does not hold.

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Vinylite is not a autotelism. ; $context$ = sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the thorium is not a foot-pound then the fact that that either it is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is not wrong is not right.; sent8 & sent2 -> int2: the thorium is not a foot-pound.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the thorium is an adoption and/or it is not a hypanthium is not right.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong.

If it's not a foot-pound and it's not a hypanthium, then it's not wrong.

if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound.

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Vinylite is not a autotelism. ; $context$ = sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the thorium is not a foot-pound then the fact that that either it is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is not wrong is not right.; sent8 & sent2 -> int2: the thorium is not a foot-pound.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the thorium is an adoption and/or it is not a hypanthium is not right.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong.

If it is not a foot-pound, then it is not an adoption, and if it is, then it is not a hypanthium.

the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze.

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Vinylite is not a autotelism.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Vinylite is not a autotelism. ; $context$ = sent1: the thorium is not a autotelism. sent2: the thorium is not zoic but it does hydrolyze. sent3: the Vinylite is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze if the endoskeleton is not zoic. sent4: the package is a autotelism. sent5: if something is a kind of a foot-pound but it does not hydrolyze it is not a autotelism. sent6: the thorium does flex if it is not a foot-pound. sent7: the Vinylite is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent8: if the thorium is not zoic but it hydrolyzes then it is not a kind of a foot-pound. sent9: the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong. sent10: something hydrolyzes if it is not a foot-pound. sent11: if the fact that the Vinylite is a hypanthium or it hydrolyzes or both is incorrect then the thorium is a kind of a autotelism. sent12: the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect. sent13: the thorium is not a kind of an adoption. sent14: the thorium is bicylindrical. sent15: the endoskeleton is not zoic if the pyromancer is zoic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: if the thorium is not a foot-pound then the fact that that either it is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is not wrong is not right.; sent8 & sent2 -> int2: the thorium is not a foot-pound.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the thorium is an adoption and/or it is not a hypanthium is not right.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either something is a kind of an adoption or it is not a hypanthium or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a foot-pound is not wrong.

If it's not a foot-pound and it's not a hypanthium, it's not wrong.

the Vinylite is a autotelism if that the thorium is either an adoption or not a hypanthium or both is incorrect.

the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide.

sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the newsreader is a calcium-cyanamide.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the newsreader does boondoggle.

The newsreader does a poor job.

if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug.

the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide.

sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the newsreader is a calcium-cyanamide.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the newsreader is not a calcium-cyanamide. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a calcium-cyanamide then it is not postnuptial. sent2: if something is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide that is a boondoggle then it does not cull pug. sent3: if something is Kurdish it does cull pug. sent4: the fact that there exists nothing such that it is a Bassariscidae and it is not a Kurdish hold. sent5: the newsreader does boondoggle. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the newsreader does boondoggle.

The newsreader is a boondoggle.

if something is Kurdish it does cull pug.

the superior is not mediatory.

sent1: there exists something such that that it is communicative but not an amount is not correct. sent2: the superior does not amount. sent3: if something conditions then it is mediatory. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a interoperability and does transfer hryvnia is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not communicative and it is not a stanza does not hold then the pyromancer does not transfer Japan. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not wrong does not hold the superior is not mediatory. sent7: if something is not mediatory then that it does not grudge superior and is not migratory is not right. sent8: there is something such that that it culls impenitence and it is not arteriosclerotic is not right. sent9: if something is communicative the superior is not a pigtail. sent10: there exists something such that that it is greater thing that is not a concerned is false. sent11: there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true. sent12: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Deere that is not a kind of an eagerness is false.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{AB}{a} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{EI}x & {GG}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{HI}x) -> ¬{AR}{eq} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & ¬{JI}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬({GO}x & ¬{N}x) sent9: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{IL}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬({CP}x & ¬{IC}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬({IT}x & ¬{EE}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the superior is mediatory.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the superior is not mediatory. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is communicative but not an amount is not correct. sent2: the superior does not amount. sent3: if something conditions then it is mediatory. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is not a interoperability and does transfer hryvnia is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not communicative and it is not a stanza does not hold then the pyromancer does not transfer Japan. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not wrong does not hold the superior is not mediatory. sent7: if something is not mediatory then that it does not grudge superior and is not migratory is not right. sent8: there is something such that that it culls impenitence and it is not arteriosclerotic is not right. sent9: if something is communicative the superior is not a pigtail. sent10: there exists something such that that it is greater thing that is not a concerned is false. sent11: there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true. sent12: there is something such that that it is a kind of a Deere that is not a kind of an eagerness is false. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true.

there is something such that that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not true.

if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is not communicative and it does not amount is not wrong does not hold the superior is not mediatory.

the crackpot is not a kind of a episome.

sent1: the cougar does grudge impression and is a pug if that the pruner does not polish hold. sent2: if something is subtractive then the crackpot is a kind of a episome. sent3: that the flatcar is a Picus if there exists something such that the fact that it is a proctoplasty and it is not a Africander does not hold is correct. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of a episome and it does grudge pruner is wrong then it is not a episome. sent5: the gunite is not non-Gabonese if something transfers fluorescence. sent6: if the crackpot does not grudge impression it does not grudge pruner and it is biblical. sent7: the crackpot is a kind of a Gabonese. sent8: if something does grudge impression then that it does not grudge pruner and it is not biblical is incorrect. sent9: something is Gabonese but it is not subtractive. sent10: there is something such that that it is a Gabonese that is subtractive is wrong. sent11: if the pruner is both binomial and not unidentifiable it does not polish. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true. sent13: the crackpot is a Oregon if something does cull pyxis. sent14: the fact that something is a face but it is not tricentenary is not correct if it is not a episome. sent15: if something is not biblical that it is a episome and does grudge pruner does not hold. sent16: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Gabonese and it is not subtractive is wrong then the crackpot is a episome. sent17: the crackpot is a Turkish.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({HF}x & ¬{HT}x) -> {CP}{ap} sent4: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: (x): {HP}x -> {AA}{fn} sent6: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: ({H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent12: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): {AJ}x -> {BI}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({BA}x & ¬{Q}x) sent15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent16: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent17: {BR}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

there exists something such that the fact that it does face and it is not tricentenary is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({BA}x & ¬{Q}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crackpot is not a kind of a episome. ; $context$ = sent1: the cougar does grudge impression and is a pug if that the pruner does not polish hold. sent2: if something is subtractive then the crackpot is a kind of a episome. sent3: that the flatcar is a Picus if there exists something such that the fact that it is a proctoplasty and it is not a Africander does not hold is correct. sent4: if the fact that something is a kind of a episome and it does grudge pruner is wrong then it is not a episome. sent5: the gunite is not non-Gabonese if something transfers fluorescence. sent6: if the crackpot does not grudge impression it does not grudge pruner and it is biblical. sent7: the crackpot is a kind of a Gabonese. sent8: if something does grudge impression then that it does not grudge pruner and it is not biblical is incorrect. sent9: something is Gabonese but it is not subtractive. sent10: there is something such that that it is a Gabonese that is subtractive is wrong. sent11: if the pruner is both binomial and not unidentifiable it does not polish. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true. sent13: the crackpot is a Oregon if something does cull pyxis. sent14: the fact that something is a face but it is not tricentenary is not correct if it is not a episome. sent15: if something is not biblical that it is a episome and does grudge pruner does not hold. sent16: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Gabonese and it is not subtractive is wrong then the crackpot is a episome. sent17: the crackpot is a Turkish. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true.

there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of Gabonese thing that is not subtractive is not true.

if there is something such that that it is a kind of a Gabonese and it is not subtractive is wrong then the crackpot is a episome.

the grudging bull-snake does not occur.

sent1: that the flattering does not occur leads to that not the shoring but the judicialness occurs. sent2: the grudging bull-snake does not occur if the codification does not occur. sent3: if the shoring occurs the imperialisticness does not occur. sent4: if not the transferring murderee but the devoting hurl occurs the pacification does not occur. sent5: the grudging bull-snake happens if the fact that the physicochemicalness occurs is not incorrect. sent6: that the flattering does not occur yields that the shoring and the judicialness happens. sent7: the estivating happens or the transferring murderee occurs or both if the autoimmuneness does not occur. sent8: the full-timeness does not occur. sent9: the biblessness does not occur and the transferring murderee does not occur. sent10: that the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or that the full-timeness does not occur results in that the culling rhodolite does not occur. sent11: if the imperialisticness does not occur the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or the full-timeness does not occur. sent12: the flattering does not occur if the fact that both the vehicularness and the flattering occurs is not true. sent13: if the imperialisticness does not occur then the full-timeness occurs and the grudging bull-snake occurs. sent14: if the eventuality happens then the biblessness does not occur. sent15: if the unstoppableness does not occur then that the vehicularness happens and the flattering happens is wrong. sent16: if the estivating happens the vehicularness occurs. sent17: that the imperialisticness does not occur is correct if not the shoring but the judicialness happens. sent18: that the autoimmuneness does not occur is true. sent19: that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the vehicularness but not the unstoppableness happens leads to that the flattering does not occur. sent21: the non-unstoppableness and the clayeiness occurs if the pacification does not occur. sent22: if the transferring murderee occurs then the fact that the vehicularness occurs is true.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent2: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} sent3: {D} -> ¬{C} sent4: (¬{L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {AA} -> {B} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: ¬{N} -> ({M} v {L}) sent8: ¬{A} sent9: (¬{O} & ¬{L}) sent10: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{DD} sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) sent12: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent13: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent14: {P} -> ¬{O} sent15: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {F}) sent16: {M} -> {G} sent17: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent18: ¬{N} sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent20: ({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} sent21: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent22: {L} -> {G}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the culling rhodolite does not occur.

¬{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging bull-snake does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flattering does not occur leads to that not the shoring but the judicialness occurs. sent2: the grudging bull-snake does not occur if the codification does not occur. sent3: if the shoring occurs the imperialisticness does not occur. sent4: if not the transferring murderee but the devoting hurl occurs the pacification does not occur. sent5: the grudging bull-snake happens if the fact that the physicochemicalness occurs is not incorrect. sent6: that the flattering does not occur yields that the shoring and the judicialness happens. sent7: the estivating happens or the transferring murderee occurs or both if the autoimmuneness does not occur. sent8: the full-timeness does not occur. sent9: the biblessness does not occur and the transferring murderee does not occur. sent10: that the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or that the full-timeness does not occur results in that the culling rhodolite does not occur. sent11: if the imperialisticness does not occur the grudging bull-snake does not occur and/or the full-timeness does not occur. sent12: the flattering does not occur if the fact that both the vehicularness and the flattering occurs is not true. sent13: if the imperialisticness does not occur then the full-timeness occurs and the grudging bull-snake occurs. sent14: if the eventuality happens then the biblessness does not occur. sent15: if the unstoppableness does not occur then that the vehicularness happens and the flattering happens is wrong. sent16: if the estivating happens the vehicularness occurs. sent17: that the imperialisticness does not occur is correct if not the shoring but the judicialness happens. sent18: that the autoimmuneness does not occur is true. sent19: that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong. sent20: that the vehicularness but not the unstoppableness happens leads to that the flattering does not occur. sent21: the non-unstoppableness and the clayeiness occurs if the pacification does not occur. sent22: if the transferring murderee occurs then the fact that the vehicularness occurs is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong.

that the full-timeness does not occur leads to that either the physicochemicalness or that the codification does not occur or both is not wrong.

the full-timeness does not occur.

that the canoe does cull stanza and/or it is partitive does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right. sent2: something that is not a ascomycete and/or is a Mull is partitive.

¬({D}{a} v {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the canoe does cull stanza and/or it is partitive does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right. sent2: something that is not a ascomycete and/or is a Mull is partitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the canoe is not a ascomycete and/or it is a Mull.; sent2 -> int2: if the canoe is not a ascomycete and/or it is a Mull that it is partitive is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the canoe is a partitive.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right.

the fact that the canoe is not a ascomycete is right.

something that is not a ascomycete and/or is a Mull is partitive.

the cubeb is diurnal.

sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal.

{C}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: {C}{gb} sent5: {CM}{b} -> {DT}{b} sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {C}{bh} sent9: (¬{A}{bt} & {GJ}{bt}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{b} -> {C}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the lugsail is diurnal.

{C}{bh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cubeb is diurnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence.; sent11 -> int2: if the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence it is an impression.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tagasaste is a kind of an impression.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene.

The tagasaste dislikes scalene if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing.

the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene.

the cubeb is diurnal.

sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal.

{C}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: {C}{gb} sent5: {CM}{b} -> {DT}{b} sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {C}{bh} sent9: (¬{A}{bt} & {GJ}{bt}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{b} -> {C}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the lugsail is diurnal.

{C}{bh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cubeb is diurnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence.; sent11 -> int2: if the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence it is an impression.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tagasaste is a kind of an impression.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene.

If it is a non-subsonic thing, the tagasaste dislikes it.

something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence.

the cubeb is diurnal.

sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal.

{C}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: {C}{gb} sent5: {CM}{b} -> {DT}{b} sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {C}{bh} sent9: (¬{A}{bt} & {GJ}{bt}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{b} -> {C}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the lugsail is diurnal.

{C}{bh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cubeb is diurnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not an impression and does not grudge fluorescence is not right then it is not diurnal. sent2: the tagasaste is non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent3: the tagasaste is not subsonic. sent4: the Tanzanian is diurnal. sent5: the cubeb culls surd if it is extrasensory. sent6: that that the tagasaste grudges fluorescence is not incorrect if the tagasaste is subsonic and it is scalene is not incorrect. sent7: the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene. sent8: the fact that if that that the tagasaste is not a kind of an impression and/or does grudge fluorescence is not true hold the lugsail is diurnal is true. sent9: the lidar is not an impression but it is cytological. sent10: the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression. sent11: something is an impression if it grudges fluorescence. sent12: if the cubeb is scalene then it is diurnal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence.; sent11 -> int2: if the tagasaste does grudge fluorescence it is an impression.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tagasaste is a kind of an impression.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tagasaste grudges fluorescence if it is a kind of non-subsonic thing that is scalene.

If it is a kind of non-subsonic thing, the tagasaste dislikes it.

the cubeb is diurnal if the tagasaste is an impression.

the gasometer culls Italian.

sent1: the phase culls Italian. sent2: that the gasometer is a Krupp is not false. sent3: the gasometer culls Italian if the takeaway is a Krupp. sent4: the takeaway does not cull Italian. sent5: the attache does not grudge Kerouac. sent6: the whitewash does not cull Italian but it is a kind of a uropygium. sent7: something does not grudge Belsen but it culls enophile if it is not transeunt. sent8: something is a Krupp if that it does not grudge Belsen and it does not cull Italian does not hold. sent9: the ianfu is a kind of non-renewable thing that is a kind of a Krupp. sent10: that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true. sent11: the fact that the GP does sit is right. sent12: that something does not grudge Belsen and does not cull Italian is incorrect if it does not cull enophile. sent13: the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent14: the takeaway does not grudge Kerouac. sent15: if something is not a Krupp it does not cull Italian and does sit. sent16: that either the takeaway does not transfer lightweight or it is transeunt or both does not hold if the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent17: the sugarberry is not proud but a Krupp. sent18: the Anglican culls Italian.

{C}{b}

sent1: {C}{f} sent2: {B}{b} sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{bs} sent6: (¬{C}{id} & {EE}{id}) sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent9: (¬{JB}{hf} & {B}{hf}) sent10: (¬{C}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent11: {A}{bd} sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬{H}{b} sent14: ¬{I}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent16: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} v {F}{a}) sent17: (¬{EF}{gk} & {B}{gk}) sent18: {C}{bh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the gasometer does not cull Italian.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gasometer culls Italian. ; $context$ = sent1: the phase culls Italian. sent2: that the gasometer is a Krupp is not false. sent3: the gasometer culls Italian if the takeaway is a Krupp. sent4: the takeaway does not cull Italian. sent5: the attache does not grudge Kerouac. sent6: the whitewash does not cull Italian but it is a kind of a uropygium. sent7: something does not grudge Belsen but it culls enophile if it is not transeunt. sent8: something is a Krupp if that it does not grudge Belsen and it does not cull Italian does not hold. sent9: the ianfu is a kind of non-renewable thing that is a kind of a Krupp. sent10: that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true. sent11: the fact that the GP does sit is right. sent12: that something does not grudge Belsen and does not cull Italian is incorrect if it does not cull enophile. sent13: the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent14: the takeaway does not grudge Kerouac. sent15: if something is not a Krupp it does not cull Italian and does sit. sent16: that either the takeaway does not transfer lightweight or it is transeunt or both does not hold if the gasometer is not a neostigmine. sent17: the sugarberry is not proud but a Krupp. sent18: the Anglican culls Italian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true.

that the takeaway does not cull Italian but it does cull Cardiospermum is true.

the Anglican culls Italian.

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

If that is not a leeward, then it is not nominalistic.

something is a student.

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

If that is not a leeward then it is not nominalistic.

that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student.

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

If it is not a leeward, then it is not nominalistic.

something does not transfer pragmatic.

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

If that is not a leeward, then it's not nominalistic.

the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic.

the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold.

sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the pug is non-nominalistic thing that does not uphold is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pug is not nominalistic and it does not uphold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not uphold but it is an exponential does not hold it is not a leeward. sent2: the fact that the pug is not nominalistic and does not uphold does not hold if it is not a student. sent3: that the fact that the pug is both not a leeward and a Salvador does not hold is not incorrect if there is something such that it is a kind of a student. sent4: something does not transfer pragmatic. sent5: if the pug is a kind of a leeward it is not nominalistic. sent6: the salter does not uphold or it is not an exponential or both if something does not transfer pragmatic. sent7: the salter upholds or it is not an exponential or both. sent8: if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold. sent9: something is a student. sent10: if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the pug is not nominalistic if that it is not leeward and it is a Salvador is incorrect.; sent9 & sent3 -> int2: that the pug is a kind of non-leeward a Salvador is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pug is non-nominalistic.; sent4 & sent6 -> int4: the salter does not uphold and/or is not an exponential.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the pug does not uphold.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a leeward but a Salvador does not hold then it is not nominalistic.

If that is not a leeward, it is not nominalistic.

if the salter does not uphold and/or it is not an exponential then the pug does not uphold.

the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry.

sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium and/or is not non-electromagnetic does not hold.

¬(¬{CO}{jb} v {AB}{jb})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry. ; $context$ = sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises.

The fact that something doesn't transfer windmill is not true if it dies.

the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal.

the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry.

sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium and/or is not non-electromagnetic does not hold.

¬(¬{CO}{jb} v {AB}{jb})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barbell is a drawing that grudges viscometry. ; $context$ = sent1: the tabard demises and is a potoroo if it is not nebulous. sent2: the watercress demises and it is nonarboreal. sent3: the barbell is not nebulous. sent4: if the collards is not an autoclave then it is Achaean and nonarboreal. sent5: the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false. sent6: the collards is a kind of a Achaean if something is either not an autoclave or a agglutinin or both. sent7: if something is not nebulous then it is a kind of a potoroo. sent8: something either does not demise or does not grudge viscometry or both if it draws. sent9: if there exists something such that it is nebulous then the tabard is a kind of a drawing that is a kind of a potoroo. sent10: there is something such that it either does not autoclave or is a agglutinin or both. sent11: the watercress does transfer windmill if it does demise. sent12: the collards does not autoclave. sent13: the watercress is nonarboreal. sent14: if the barbell is not nebulous then it is a potoroo. sent15: that the watercress transfers windmill is not false. sent16: if the barbell does not demise that the cue does not grudge Leontopodium or is electromagnetic or both is not correct. sent17: the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises. sent18: if the collards is nonarboreal then it is nebulous. sent19: the barbell is a potoroo. sent20: if something does demise then that it does transfer windmill is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does not transfer windmill or is electromagnetic or both is not true if it demises.

If something does not transfer windmill, it is not true.

the barbell grudges viscometry if the fact that the watercress does not transfer windmill or it is electromagnetic or both is false.

the methamphetamine transfers bearer.

sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic but it is a madrigalist does not hold is right.

¬(¬{IT}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methamphetamine transfers bearer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the horsewhip does not brocade.; sent6 -> int2: if the horsewhip is not a brocaded that it is a kind of non-apologetics thing that is a Samoan is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the horsewhip is not apologetics and is a Samoan is not false is incorrect.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded.

The horsewhip is not a brocaded if it does not lengthen.

that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false.

the methamphetamine transfers bearer.

sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic but it is a madrigalist does not hold is right.

¬(¬{IT}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methamphetamine transfers bearer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the horsewhip does not brocade.; sent6 -> int2: if the horsewhip is not a brocaded that it is a kind of non-apologetics thing that is a Samoan is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the horsewhip is not apologetics and is a Samoan is not false is incorrect.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded.

The horsewhip is not brocaded if it does not lengthen and is a madrigalist.

if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect.

the methamphetamine transfers bearer.

sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic but it is a madrigalist does not hold is right.

¬(¬{IT}{a} & {AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methamphetamine transfers bearer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not teleport and it is not a scours. sent2: the salicylate does not devote pectin if there exists something such that that it is a phytotoxin and/or it is not veterinary is not true. sent3: that something is apologetics and it is a brocaded is wrong if it does not transfer bearer. sent4: if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded. sent5: the methamphetamine is not Samoan if there exists something such that that it is both apologetics and a brocaded is not right. sent6: if something is not a brocaded then the fact that it is not apologetics and it is a Samoan is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the salicylate does not devote pectin hold the chlorite does not transfer bearer and it is not aortal. sent8: that the horsewhip is not cytotoxic and is a madrigalist does not hold if the methamphetamine is not a Samoan. sent9: something does recriminate if it verbalizes. sent10: the fact that the rennin is a phytotoxin or it is not veterinary or both is not correct if the fetoprotein recriminates. sent11: something is voyeuristic and is a inamorata if it does not teleport. sent12: if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer. sent13: the horsewhip transfers bearer if the methamphetamine is a brocaded. sent14: that the Choctaw is not a subordination but it is a brocaded is not right if it is not a kind of a Trimorphodon. sent15: the fetoprotein verbalizes if the harpsichordist is voyeuristic. sent16: that the horsewhip does not lengthen but it is a kind of a madrigalist is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the horsewhip does not brocade.; sent6 -> int2: if the horsewhip is not a brocaded that it is a kind of non-apologetics thing that is a Samoan is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that that the horsewhip is not apologetics and is a Samoan is not false is incorrect.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the horsewhip does not lengthen and is a madrigalist does not hold it is not a brocaded.

The horsewhip is not a brocaded if it does not lengthen and is a madrigalist.

if the fact that the horsewhip is not apologetics but it is a Samoan does not hold then the methamphetamine transfers bearer.

both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens.

sent1: the renunciation happens if that the grudging bookmark but not the shaping occurs is incorrect. sent2: if the grudging Capitol does not occur then the punch-up occurs. sent3: the punch-up occurs. sent4: that the renunciation happens prevents the non-maladroitness. sent5: the devoting Rush and the viziership happens if the littering does not occur. sent6: the perithelialness and the transferring lather occurs. sent7: the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent8: that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent9: if the renunciation does not occur then that both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens is wrong. sent10: if the devoting Rush occurs the punch-up happens but the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent11: if the maladroitness does not occur then the fact that the romaicness but not the terming occurs is wrong.

({C} & {A})

sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{E} -> {D} sent3: {D} sent4: {B} -> {A} sent5: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent6: ({K} & {BI}) sent7: ¬{E} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent10: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({EF} & ¬{GE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the romaicness but not the term happens does not hold.

¬({EF} & ¬{GE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the renunciation happens if that the grudging bookmark but not the shaping occurs is incorrect. sent2: if the grudging Capitol does not occur then the punch-up occurs. sent3: the punch-up occurs. sent4: that the renunciation happens prevents the non-maladroitness. sent5: the devoting Rush and the viziership happens if the littering does not occur. sent6: the perithelialness and the transferring lather occurs. sent7: the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent8: that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent9: if the renunciation does not occur then that both the culling clasp and the maladroitness happens is wrong. sent10: if the devoting Rush occurs the punch-up happens but the grudging Capitol does not occur. sent11: if the maladroitness does not occur then the fact that the romaicness but not the terming occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur.

that the culling clasp and the punch-up happens is right if the grudging Capitol does not occur.

the grudging Capitol does not occur.

the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur does not hold.

sent1: the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs. sent2: the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur if the disenfranchisement does not occur. sent3: if the hoofing happens then the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the grudging bandstand happens that the transferring humectant does not occur and the patrioticness does not occur is not correct. sent5: if the carrot happens that the feint does not occur and the looping does not occur is not right. sent6: if the topographicalness occurs and the insufficientness occurs then the expedition does not occur. sent7: the disenfranchisement happens if the expedition does not occur and the hoofing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold if the disenfranchisement occurs.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent4: {FP} -> ¬(¬{BJ} & ¬{HU}) sent5: {GH} -> ¬(¬{ID} & ¬{JH}) sent6: ({E} & {F}) -> ¬{C} sent7: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> {A} sent8: {A} -> ¬(¬{BO} & ¬{AQ})

PROVED

PROVED

that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{BO} & ¬{AQ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs. sent2: the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur if the disenfranchisement does not occur. sent3: if the hoofing happens then the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur is wrong. sent4: if the grudging bandstand happens that the transferring humectant does not occur and the patrioticness does not occur is not correct. sent5: if the carrot happens that the feint does not occur and the looping does not occur is not right. sent6: if the topographicalness occurs and the insufficientness occurs then the expedition does not occur. sent7: the disenfranchisement happens if the expedition does not occur and the hoofing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the excrescentness does not occur and the tremolo does not occur does not hold if the disenfranchisement occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: that the hoofing occurs is correct.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs.

the disenfranchisement and the hoofing occurs.

if the hoofing happens then the fact that the expedition does not occur and the transferring judgeship does not occur is wrong.

there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan.

sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan. ; $context$ = sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the behaviorist transfers spermatophyte.; sent4 & sent5 -> int2: the behaviorist is not non-Augustan.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the behaviorist does transfer spermatophyte and it is Augustan.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte.

The behaviorist is a kind of Watergate.

if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan.

there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan.

sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it transfers spermatophyte and is Augustan. ; $context$ = sent1: the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte. sent2: something does transfer spermatophyte. sent3: there is something such that it is Augustan. sent4: if the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and does grudge prestige is incorrect it is Augustan. sent5: the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the behaviorist transfers spermatophyte.; sent4 & sent5 -> int2: the behaviorist is not non-Augustan.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the behaviorist does transfer spermatophyte and it is Augustan.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the behaviorist is a kind of a Watergate and it does transfer spermatophyte.

The behaviorist is a type of Watergate.

the fact that the behaviorist does not grudge styrax and grudges prestige does not hold.

the fact that either the Paradise does disperse or it is adenoidal or both is false.

sent1: if that something does disperse and does not grudge shrimp is not correct then it grudges telephotograph. sent2: the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp. sent3: something disperses if that it does grudge shrimp is correct. sent4: the king disperses. sent5: the Paradise does quit or does disperse or both.

¬({C}{a} v {D}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: {C}{ds} sent5: ({L}{a} v {C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the waterspout grudges telephotograph.

{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that either the Paradise does disperse or it is adenoidal or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does disperse and does not grudge shrimp is not correct then it grudges telephotograph. sent2: the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp. sent3: something disperses if that it does grudge shrimp is correct. sent4: the king disperses. sent5: the Paradise does quit or does disperse or both. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the Paradise does grudge shrimp.; sent3 -> int2: the Paradise does disperse if it grudges shrimp.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Paradise disperses is not wrong.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp.

the Paradise does grudge telephotograph and grudges shrimp.

something disperses if that it does grudge shrimp is correct.

the nasturtium is not a hacek.

sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the arginine culls dockyard.

{A}{iq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nasturtium is not a hacek. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the detractor culls dockyard.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect.

There is something wrong with the fact that it does not exhale or that it is unsexy.

if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard.

the nasturtium is not a hacek.

sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the arginine culls dockyard.

{A}{iq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nasturtium is not a hacek. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nasturtium is a hacek and is a nyctophobia is false if it does not cull dockyard. sent2: something is not unsexy. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that it does not exhale and/or is unsexy. sent5: something is not a hacek and/or culls dockyard. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hacek and/or it culls dockyard is incorrect. sent7: if something is a kind of a club-head it is a icefall. sent8: the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard. sent9: the nasturtium is a club-head. sent10: if the detractor does not cull nasturtium but it grudges pectin then it is not a nyctophobia. sent11: something is not a hacek if that it is a hacek and it is a nyctophobia does not hold. sent12: if there exists something such that that either it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both does not hold then the detractor does cull dockyard. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the detractor culls dockyard.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it does not exhale or it is unsexy or both is incorrect.

There is something wrong with the fact that it doesn't exhale or that it is unsexy.

the nasturtium is a hacek if the detractor culls dockyard.

the aviary does promenade.

sent1: if the saury does not transfer humectant then it does not refrain. sent2: if there is something such that it does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume then the PVA does not transfer perfume. sent3: if the PVA is a poltergeist the saury does not transfer humectant. sent4: if something does transfer humectant then that the efferent is a kind of a refrain that does not transfer humectant does not hold. sent5: everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine. sent6: the aviary does promenade if there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine. sent7: the PVA is a poltergeist and strengthens if it does not transfer perfume. sent8: the cyme does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume. sent9: the efferent does not refrain if the fact that it is a refrain and it does not transfer humectant is not right. sent10: either everything culls drunk or it is not Ismaili or both. sent11: if something is not a promenade and/or is not a Yellowstone it is not a promenade. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not a refrain the fact that the Lidocaine does not cull spectrogram is not false. sent13: the fact that the Lidocaine does promenade if the efferent does cull spectrogram and is not a Yellowstone hold. sent14: the aviary is a promenade if something is not a seine.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the aviary is a kind of a seine is not wrong.

{AB}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aviary does promenade. ; $context$ = sent1: if the saury does not transfer humectant then it does not refrain. sent2: if there is something such that it does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume then the PVA does not transfer perfume. sent3: if the PVA is a poltergeist the saury does not transfer humectant. sent4: if something does transfer humectant then that the efferent is a kind of a refrain that does not transfer humectant does not hold. sent5: everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine. sent6: the aviary does promenade if there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine. sent7: the PVA is a poltergeist and strengthens if it does not transfer perfume. sent8: the cyme does not transfer spectrogram and/or it does not transfer perfume. sent9: the efferent does not refrain if the fact that it is a refrain and it does not transfer humectant is not right. sent10: either everything culls drunk or it is not Ismaili or both. sent11: if something is not a promenade and/or is not a Yellowstone it is not a promenade. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not a refrain the fact that the Lidocaine does not cull spectrogram is not false. sent13: the fact that the Lidocaine does promenade if the efferent does cull spectrogram and is not a Yellowstone hold. sent14: the aviary is a promenade if something is not a seine. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the island is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine.

everything is a newsworthiness and/or it is not a seine.

the aviary does promenade if there is something such that it is a newsworthiness and/or not a seine.

the drain occurs.

sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the one-hitter occurs.

{GA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the drain occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the transferring fanjet happens and the thermohydrometricness occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the transferring fanjet occurs.

The fanjet is moving.

the thermohydrometricness happens.

the drain occurs.

sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the one-hitter occurs.

{GA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the drain occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the one-hitter happens hold if the thermohydrometricness does not occur but the transferring fanjet happens. sent2: the Americanism occurs. sent3: the transferring fanjet occurs. sent4: the thermohydrometricness happens. sent5: the stringing happens. sent6: the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the transferring fanjet happens and the thermohydrometricness occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the transferring fanjet occurs.

The fanjet is transferring.

the draining does not occur if the transferring fanjet occurs and the thermohydrometricness happens.

something is not a spoonbill and does not travel.

sent1: the flurazepam is both not logistics and not a travel. sent2: something is logistics. sent3: there are annual things. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold. sent5: the HS1 is logistics. sent6: the psittacosaur does transfer zakat. sent7: the flurazepam does not travel. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a travel. sent9: there exists something such that it is not chalky. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a spoonbill and it is not logistics. sent11: that if the psittacosaur is a spoonbill then the flurazepam is not a kind of a spoonbill and it is not a travel hold. sent12: something is both not a homograft and larval. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fanjet is true then the snowman is logistics. sent14: if the snowman is a kind of a travel then the flurazepam is not a kind of a travel and is not logistics. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not cull disconnection hold. sent16: if something is not a fanjet then it does not cull supersedure and it does not grudge unorthodoxy. sent17: if the psittacosaur is a kind of a spoonbill the snowman is not a spoonbill.

(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x)

sent1: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: (Ex): {CO}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {B}{cd} sent6: {HS}{b} sent7: ¬{D}{c} sent8: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{HF}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent11: {C}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent12: (Ex): (¬{DQ}x & {GK}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent14: {D}{a} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{HA}x sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{GS}x & ¬{IO}x) sent17: {C}{b} -> ¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that it does not cull supersedure and does not grudge unorthodoxy.

(Ex): (¬{GS}x & ¬{IO}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is not a spoonbill and does not travel. ; $context$ = sent1: the flurazepam is both not logistics and not a travel. sent2: something is logistics. sent3: there are annual things. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold. sent5: the HS1 is logistics. sent6: the psittacosaur does transfer zakat. sent7: the flurazepam does not travel. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a travel. sent9: there exists something such that it is not chalky. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a spoonbill and it is not logistics. sent11: that if the psittacosaur is a spoonbill then the flurazepam is not a kind of a spoonbill and it is not a travel hold. sent12: something is both not a homograft and larval. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fanjet is true then the snowman is logistics. sent14: if the snowman is a kind of a travel then the flurazepam is not a kind of a travel and is not logistics. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not cull disconnection hold. sent16: if something is not a fanjet then it does not cull supersedure and it does not grudge unorthodoxy. sent17: if the psittacosaur is a kind of a spoonbill the snowman is not a spoonbill. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold.

there exists something such that that it is a fanjet hold.

if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a fanjet is true then the snowman is logistics.

the pickaninny is not a response.

sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{aa} -> {AA}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent5: {AB}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({HQ}x & {Q}x) sent8: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {A}x) sent10: {AB}{p} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {DU}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent13: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent14: {B}{bi} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{CQ}x & {DH}x) sent16: ¬(¬{GG}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent17: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent18: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pickaninny is not a response. ; $context$ = sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is false.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the CPU is Panhellenic.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate.

There is no such thing as it being a variate.

the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct.

the pickaninny is not a response.

sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{aa} -> {AA}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent5: {AB}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({HQ}x & {Q}x) sent8: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {A}x) sent10: {AB}{p} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {DU}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent13: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent14: {B}{bi} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{CQ}x & {DH}x) sent16: ¬(¬{GG}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent17: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent18: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pickaninny is not a response. ; $context$ = sent1: if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response. sent2: if the syncopator is a kind of a response then the pickaninny does google. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate. sent4: if the CPU is Panhellenic the pickaninny googles. sent5: the CPU is a variate. sent6: the syncopator is Panhellenic if the fact that the CPU does not google and is a response is not true. sent7: there is nothing such that it does grudge primo and is a kind of a Bush. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a response and is Panhellenic. sent9: there exists nothing that does not google and is Panhellenic. sent10: the boiling is a variate. sent11: the fact that there is nothing that is not a cockatoo and grudges tenantry hold. sent12: there is nothing that is not a variate but Panhellenic. sent13: the CPU is a variate if the fact that the syncopator is not Panhellenic is not right. sent14: the capercaillie is a response. sent15: there is nothing such that it is a kind of non-resolute thing that is a newsagent. sent16: that the CPU is not violent but it googles does not hold. sent17: the pickaninny is Panhellenic if the CPU is a response. sent18: the CPU is Panhellenic if the syncopator is not a variate. sent19: the CPU is not non-Panhellenic if that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the syncopator does not google but it is a variate is false.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the CPU is Panhellenic.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it does not google and is a variate.

There isn't any such thing that it doesn't search and is a variate.

if the CPU is Panhellenic then the pickaninny is a kind of a response.

the grudging dispute does not occur.

sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent2: (¬{HD} & ¬{HL}) -> {DK} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent5: {H} -> ¬{G} sent6: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent7: {B} -> (¬{A} & ¬{JD}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{G} -> {F}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the linealness does not occur.

¬{JD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging dispute does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inelegantness does not occur.

The inelegantness doesn't happen.

the estivating does not occur.

the grudging dispute does not occur.

sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent2: (¬{HD} & ¬{HL}) -> {DK} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent5: {H} -> ¬{G} sent6: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent7: {B} -> (¬{A} & ¬{JD}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{G} -> {F}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the linealness does not occur.

¬{JD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the grudging dispute does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the estivating and the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the transferring bounce does not occur. sent2: if the finalization does not occur and the unilateralness does not occur the avoiding occurs. sent3: the inelegantness does not occur. sent4: that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur. sent5: the grudging Mysidae does not occur if the mutant occurs. sent6: that the transferring bounce does not occur and the lockage occurs is brought about by the broadcasting. sent7: if the estivating happens then the inelegantness does not occur and the linealness does not occur. sent8: the estivating does not occur. sent9: the broadcast happens if the grudging Mysidae does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the inelegantness does not occur.

The inelegantness does not happen.

that the grudging dispute happens is brought about by that the inelegantness does not occur and the estivating does not occur.

the clerk is non-appetitive.

sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gallstone is a unevenness.

{B}{cp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clerk is non-appetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is not wrong.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both.

The maltha is either a rank or not a degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of degree of

if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal.

the clerk is non-appetitive.

sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gallstone is a unevenness.

{B}{cp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clerk is non-appetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is not wrong.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both.

The maltha is a rank or not.

the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness.

the clerk is non-appetitive.

sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gallstone is a unevenness.

{B}{cp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clerk is non-appetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both. sent2: if the maltha is a rank the engraver is protozoal. sent3: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is true if the maltha is not a kind of a unevenness. sent4: either the clerk is appetitive or it is not a kind of a rank or both. sent5: that something is a kind of a unevenness hold if it ranks and it is not protozoal. sent6: if the maltha is not protozoal the engraver does rank. sent7: if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the engraver is protozoal is not wrong.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the maltha is a rank or is not a unevenness or both.

The maltha is either a rank or not.

if the engraver is protozoal then the clerk is appetitive.

the swiftlet is a kind of a fascist and/or is unlawful.

sent1: the rip is not a kind of a substitution. sent2: the rip is not a terrorization and it is not a kind of a tested. sent3: the aftereffect is fascist. sent4: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution. sent5: that the swiftlet is not outer hold. sent6: the rip is a detractor. sent7: the tripalmitin is not professional and it is not outer. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not a Afro-wig and it is not an octillion does not hold. sent9: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution and/or it is unlawful. sent10: that the swiftlet is outer hold if the rip is both not fascist and not unlawful. sent11: the swiftlet does not grumble and it is not angry. sent12: either the rip is a substitution or it is unlawful or both. sent13: if the rip is not a substitution and it is not outer then the swiftlet is fascist. sent14: the thorium is not outer. sent15: the rip is not a fascist. sent16: the rip is not febrile.

({C}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (¬{GQ}{a} & ¬{CJ}{a}) sent3: {C}{am} sent4: {A}{b} sent5: ¬{B}{b} sent6: {O}{a} sent7: (¬{HM}{dp} & ¬{B}{dp}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: ({A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent10: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent11: (¬{HE}{b} & ¬{AU}{b}) sent12: ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent13: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent14: ¬{B}{cu} sent15: ¬{C}{a} sent16: ¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that that the swiftlet is fascist and/or unlawful is incorrect is right.

¬({C}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the swiftlet is a kind of a fascist and/or is unlawful. ; $context$ = sent1: the rip is not a kind of a substitution. sent2: the rip is not a terrorization and it is not a kind of a tested. sent3: the aftereffect is fascist. sent4: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution. sent5: that the swiftlet is not outer hold. sent6: the rip is a detractor. sent7: the tripalmitin is not professional and it is not outer. sent8: there exists something such that that it is not a Afro-wig and it is not an octillion does not hold. sent9: the swiftlet is a kind of a substitution and/or it is unlawful. sent10: that the swiftlet is outer hold if the rip is both not fascist and not unlawful. sent11: the swiftlet does not grumble and it is not angry. sent12: either the rip is a substitution or it is unlawful or both. sent13: if the rip is not a substitution and it is not outer then the swiftlet is fascist. sent14: the thorium is not outer. sent15: the rip is not a fascist. sent16: the rip is not febrile. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the thorium is not outer.

the thorium is not outer.

the swiftlet does not grumble and it is not angry.

that something is a kind of postal a Service hold.

sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-lumbar and a Cladonia is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({HH}x & {DD}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of postal a Service hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the alcoholic is a Service.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the alcoholic is postal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alcoholic is a kind of postal thing that is a kind of a Service.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic.

If it is not paralytic, the alcoholic is a service.

that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true.

that something is a kind of postal a Service hold.

sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-lumbar and a Cladonia is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({HH}x & {DD}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of postal a Service hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the alcoholic is a Service.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the alcoholic is postal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alcoholic is a kind of postal thing that is a kind of a Service.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic.

If it is not paralytic, the alcoholic is a Service.

there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false.

that something is a kind of postal a Service hold.

sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-lumbar and a Cladonia is not correct.

(Ex): ¬({HH}x & {DD}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of postal a Service hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it does grudge Afroasiatic and does devote dihybrid. sent2: the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it grudges Afroasiatic and it does devote dihybrid is not false is false. sent4: if the protease is not a paralytic then the fact that the alcoholic is not non-lumbar but a Cladonia does not hold. sent5: the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic. sent6: the alcoholic is postal if something does not grudge Afroasiatic. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is deconstructionist is correct. sent8: that the alcoholic is a kind of a paralytic is true. sent9: there is something such that it is postal. sent10: that the rennin is postal and it is a Service is not true if something does devote dihybrid. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Service. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the alcoholic is a Service.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the alcoholic is postal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the alcoholic is a kind of postal thing that is a kind of a Service.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the alcoholic is a Service is right if it is not non-paralytic.

If it is not paralytic, then the alcoholic is a service.

the alcoholic is postal if there is something such that that it does grudge Afroasiatic and devotes dihybrid is not correct.

the dragee is a syrup or a crying or both.

sent1: the dragee is a Romulus and/or is a willingness. sent2: either the dragee is a pang or it is a syrup or both. sent3: the dragee is a Romulus. sent4: if something is not a sport it is not polyatomic. sent5: everything is western. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a transcendentalism that does not cull skipper is not correct then the fact that the mulatto is a syrup is not wrong. sent7: the jackscrew is a syrup. sent8: if the presence is not polyatomic that the adsorption is a kind of a transcendentalism and does not cull skipper is not true. sent9: the presence does cull nark. sent10: if something does cull nark it is not nonsurgical and it is not a sport. sent11: that everything is a Romulus is right. sent12: the fact that either the dragee is a Romulus or it is a Conepatus or both is not wrong. sent13: the eschatologist is a syrup. sent14: if the mulatto is a syrup then that the position is not a kind of a Romulus but it cries is wrong. sent15: the dragee is either a crying or nonreversible or both. sent16: everything is a Best and it is a kind of a ratline. sent17: that something is a kind of a syrup and/or it is a kind of a crying is not correct if it is not a Romulus.

({A}{aa} v {C}{aa})

sent1: ({B}{aa} v {DP}{aa}) sent2: ({IQ}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent3: {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}x sent5: (x): {DU}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: {A}{be} sent8: ¬{F}{d} -> ¬({D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent9: {I}{d} sent10: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent11: (x): {B}x sent12: ({B}{aa} v {GB}{aa}) sent13: {A}{do} sent14: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: ({C}{aa} v {HA}{aa}) sent16: (x): ({AK}x & {HO}x) sent17: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v {C}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the dragee is a kind of a syrup or it cries or both is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} v {C}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dragee is a syrup or a crying or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dragee is a Romulus and/or is a willingness. sent2: either the dragee is a pang or it is a syrup or both. sent3: the dragee is a Romulus. sent4: if something is not a sport it is not polyatomic. sent5: everything is western. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a transcendentalism that does not cull skipper is not correct then the fact that the mulatto is a syrup is not wrong. sent7: the jackscrew is a syrup. sent8: if the presence is not polyatomic that the adsorption is a kind of a transcendentalism and does not cull skipper is not true. sent9: the presence does cull nark. sent10: if something does cull nark it is not nonsurgical and it is not a sport. sent11: that everything is a Romulus is right. sent12: the fact that either the dragee is a Romulus or it is a Conepatus or both is not wrong. sent13: the eschatologist is a syrup. sent14: if the mulatto is a syrup then that the position is not a kind of a Romulus but it cries is wrong. sent15: the dragee is either a crying or nonreversible or both. sent16: everything is a Best and it is a kind of a ratline. sent17: that something is a kind of a syrup and/or it is a kind of a crying is not correct if it is not a Romulus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is western.

everything is western.

the dragee is either a crying or nonreversible or both.

the override does transfer grinding.

sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ({FE}x v {AP}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{E}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the override does transfer grinding is true.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the override does transfer grinding. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the override culls paperwork.; int1 -> int2: the override is argumentative and/or does cull paperwork.; sent2 -> int3: if that the override is argumentative and/or it does cull paperwork is not false it does not transfer grinding.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both.

There is something that does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal.

if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong.

the override does transfer grinding.

sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ({FE}x v {AP}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{E}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the override does transfer grinding is true.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the override does transfer grinding. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that either it does not transfer calvary or it is not a renewal or both then that the override culls paperwork is not wrong. sent2: if something either is argumentative or does cull paperwork or both then it does not transfer grinding. sent3: something that is a nutriment and/or a jolt is not upper-class. sent4: there exists something such that it does not transfer calvary or is not a renewal or both. sent5: the Brioschi is not a wrecked. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the override culls paperwork.; int1 -> int2: the override is argumentative and/or does cull paperwork.; sent2 -> int3: if that the override is argumentative and/or it does cull paperwork is not false it does not transfer grinding.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__