Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the burrito is not angry.

sent1: the burrito is angry if that the diner is unready is correct. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does not scour and does not nip singlestick does not hold then the Cabalist nip singlestick. sent3: if the fact that something is not angry and it does not filiate Pentagon is not right it is not unready. sent4: that the diner is not a hydroxychloroquine and is quadrangular is wrong if it is not a kind of a Kronecker. sent5: if that the diner is not a hydroxychloroquine but quadrangular does not hold it is not a scour. sent6: the Cabalist is not a buyer if the diner is not unready. sent7: something is not a buyer but it fringes. sent8: the Cabalist is not a buyer. sent9: the Cabalist is both not a buyer and not a fringe if the diner is not unready. sent10: the Cabalist is both not angry and not a buyer. sent11: the subdivider is both not quadrangular and not a hydroxychloroquine. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of an incendiary and it is not alopecic. sent13: something that is not unready does not scale Ewe and does not nip singlestick. sent14: the burrito is not angry if there is something such that it is a buyer and it does not fringe. sent15: the burrito is not angry if something that is not a buyer is not a fringe. sent16: there is something such that it is not a buyer. sent17: if something does nip singlestick then that it is ready thing that does filiate Pentagon does not hold. sent18: the singlestick is not quadratics and is not a backspin. sent19: that something is not a scour and it does not nip singlestick is not correct if it is not quadrangular.

¬{B}{c}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{c} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: ¬{H}{a} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{AA}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent10: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent11: (¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent12: (Ex): (¬{HT}x & ¬{IS}x) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AQ}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent16: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent17: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent18: (¬{HJ}{ee} & ¬{HO}{ee}) sent19: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the burrito is angry.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the burrito is not angry. ; $context$ = sent1: the burrito is angry if that the diner is unready is correct. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it does not scour and does not nip singlestick does not hold then the Cabalist nip singlestick. sent3: if the fact that something is not angry and it does not filiate Pentagon is not right it is not unready. sent4: that the diner is not a hydroxychloroquine and is quadrangular is wrong if it is not a kind of a Kronecker. sent5: if that the diner is not a hydroxychloroquine but quadrangular does not hold it is not a scour. sent6: the Cabalist is not a buyer if the diner is not unready. sent7: something is not a buyer but it fringes. sent8: the Cabalist is not a buyer. sent9: the Cabalist is both not a buyer and not a fringe if the diner is not unready. sent10: the Cabalist is both not angry and not a buyer. sent11: the subdivider is both not quadrangular and not a hydroxychloroquine. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of an incendiary and it is not alopecic. sent13: something that is not unready does not scale Ewe and does not nip singlestick. sent14: the burrito is not angry if there is something such that it is a buyer and it does not fringe. sent15: the burrito is not angry if something that is not a buyer is not a fringe. sent16: there is something such that it is not a buyer. sent17: if something does nip singlestick then that it is ready thing that does filiate Pentagon does not hold. sent18: the singlestick is not quadratics and is not a backspin. sent19: that something is not a scour and it does not nip singlestick is not correct if it is not quadrangular. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Cabalist is not a buyer if the diner is not unready.

the Cabalist is not a buyer if the diner is not unready.

that the diner is not a hydroxychloroquine and is quadrangular is wrong if it is not a kind of a Kronecker.

the imitation does not occur.

sent1: if the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur then both the convexness and the facelessness happens. sent2: if the campylotropousness happens the IOP does not occur. sent3: the campylotropousness happens if the nipping twilight happens. sent4: the fact that not the nationalness but the nipping fugitive occurs is wrong if the scaling thaw happens. sent5: the imitation does not occur if the slinking does not occur. sent6: the breathlessness does not occur if the IOP does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the comparativeness does not occur is correct then the fact that the slinking does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the convexness happens triggers that the drippings happens. sent9: the nipping twilight happens and the unwearableness happens if the nipping fugitive does not occur. sent10: that the obtaining does not occur leads to that the scaling thaw and the filiating club occurs. sent11: that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the drippings happens the fact that the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is false. sent13: if that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur is correct the comparative does not occur. sent14: if that both the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is wrong the obtaining does not occur. sent15: that the breathlessness does not occur causes that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur. sent16: the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent17: if the slinking happens the fact that the imitation happens hold. sent18: the filiating Ancohuma happens and the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur if the incompetent does not occur. sent19: if that not the national but the nipping fugitive happens is wrong that the nipping fugitive does not occur is true.

¬{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the imitation does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the imitation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur then both the convexness and the facelessness happens. sent2: if the campylotropousness happens the IOP does not occur. sent3: the campylotropousness happens if the nipping twilight happens. sent4: the fact that not the nationalness but the nipping fugitive occurs is wrong if the scaling thaw happens. sent5: the imitation does not occur if the slinking does not occur. sent6: the breathlessness does not occur if the IOP does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the comparativeness does not occur is correct then the fact that the slinking does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the convexness happens triggers that the drippings happens. sent9: the nipping twilight happens and the unwearableness happens if the nipping fugitive does not occur. sent10: that the obtaining does not occur leads to that the scaling thaw and the filiating club occurs. sent11: that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the drippings happens the fact that the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is false. sent13: if that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur is correct the comparative does not occur. sent14: if that both the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is wrong the obtaining does not occur. sent15: that the breathlessness does not occur causes that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur. sent16: the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent17: if the slinking happens the fact that the imitation happens hold. sent18: the filiating Ancohuma happens and the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur if the incompetent does not occur. sent19: if that not the national but the nipping fugitive happens is wrong that the nipping fugitive does not occur is true. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent11 -> int1: the slinking occurs.; sent17 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold.

If the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur, then the slinking occurs.

that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold.

the imitation does not occur.

sent1: if the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur then both the convexness and the facelessness happens. sent2: if the campylotropousness happens the IOP does not occur. sent3: the campylotropousness happens if the nipping twilight happens. sent4: the fact that not the nationalness but the nipping fugitive occurs is wrong if the scaling thaw happens. sent5: the imitation does not occur if the slinking does not occur. sent6: the breathlessness does not occur if the IOP does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the comparativeness does not occur is correct then the fact that the slinking does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the convexness happens triggers that the drippings happens. sent9: the nipping twilight happens and the unwearableness happens if the nipping fugitive does not occur. sent10: that the obtaining does not occur leads to that the scaling thaw and the filiating club occurs. sent11: that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the drippings happens the fact that the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is false. sent13: if that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur is correct the comparative does not occur. sent14: if that both the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is wrong the obtaining does not occur. sent15: that the breathlessness does not occur causes that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur. sent16: the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent17: if the slinking happens the fact that the imitation happens hold. sent18: the filiating Ancohuma happens and the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur if the incompetent does not occur. sent19: if that not the national but the nipping fugitive happens is wrong that the nipping fugitive does not occur is true.

¬{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the imitation does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the imitation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur then both the convexness and the facelessness happens. sent2: if the campylotropousness happens the IOP does not occur. sent3: the campylotropousness happens if the nipping twilight happens. sent4: the fact that not the nationalness but the nipping fugitive occurs is wrong if the scaling thaw happens. sent5: the imitation does not occur if the slinking does not occur. sent6: the breathlessness does not occur if the IOP does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the comparativeness does not occur is correct then the fact that the slinking does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the convexness happens triggers that the drippings happens. sent9: the nipping twilight happens and the unwearableness happens if the nipping fugitive does not occur. sent10: that the obtaining does not occur leads to that the scaling thaw and the filiating club occurs. sent11: that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the drippings happens the fact that the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is false. sent13: if that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur is correct the comparative does not occur. sent14: if that both the non-protozoologicalness and the obtaining happens is wrong the obtaining does not occur. sent15: that the breathlessness does not occur causes that the tailoring does not occur and the geeing does not occur. sent16: the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold. sent17: if the slinking happens the fact that the imitation happens hold. sent18: the filiating Ancohuma happens and the nipping hawk's-beard does not occur if the incompetent does not occur. sent19: if that not the national but the nipping fugitive happens is wrong that the nipping fugitive does not occur is true. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent11 -> int1: the slinking occurs.; sent17 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the slinking occurs if the fact that the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur does not hold.

If the incompetentness does not occur and the nipping airplane does not occur, the slinking occurs.

if the slinking happens the fact that the imitation happens hold.

the nipping Pullman occurs.

sent1: the nipping Pullman and the non-idiopathicness happens if the rejuvenation happens. sent2: the fact that the decampment happens is right. sent3: if the fact that the nipping relic and the non-zodiacalness occurs is not correct the nipping relic does not occur. sent4: that the fact that the crabbing eyespot does not occur is not wrong is wrong if the vertebralness happens. sent5: the demographicness happens. sent6: the antitrades but not the amplitude occurs. sent7: the reverentness happens if the flood happens. sent8: if the woodwork does not occur then the Erasmianness but not the perking happens. sent9: if the scaling friction happens then the dimensionalness happens. sent10: the idiopathicness does not occur. sent11: if the nipping relic does not occur the crabbing romanticism happens and the avianness occurs. sent12: that the idiopathicness does not occur is brought about by the rejuvenation. sent13: the reconciliation occurs if the woodwork occurs. sent14: if the fact that the avianness and the non-idiopathicness happens is false the reconciliation does not occur. sent15: the woodwork occurs. sent16: that the reconciliation does not occur and the woodwork does not occur prevents the nipping Pullman. sent17: the unpredictableness occurs. sent18: the idiopathicness triggers that not the reconciliation but the rejuvenation happens.

{D}

sent1: {C} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent2: {IU} sent3: ¬({H} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent4: {HO} -> {AN} sent5: {BC} sent6: ({HK} & ¬{AC}) sent7: {BN} -> {FQ} sent8: ¬{A} -> ({K} & ¬{GC}) sent9: {BU} -> {DH} sent10: ¬{E} sent11: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent12: {C} -> ¬{E} sent13: {A} -> {B} sent14: ¬({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B} sent15: {A} sent16: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{D} sent17: {BQ} sent18: {E} -> (¬{B} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the nipping Pullman does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nipping Pullman occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the nipping Pullman and the non-idiopathicness happens if the rejuvenation happens. sent2: the fact that the decampment happens is right. sent3: if the fact that the nipping relic and the non-zodiacalness occurs is not correct the nipping relic does not occur. sent4: that the fact that the crabbing eyespot does not occur is not wrong is wrong if the vertebralness happens. sent5: the demographicness happens. sent6: the antitrades but not the amplitude occurs. sent7: the reverentness happens if the flood happens. sent8: if the woodwork does not occur then the Erasmianness but not the perking happens. sent9: if the scaling friction happens then the dimensionalness happens. sent10: the idiopathicness does not occur. sent11: if the nipping relic does not occur the crabbing romanticism happens and the avianness occurs. sent12: that the idiopathicness does not occur is brought about by the rejuvenation. sent13: the reconciliation occurs if the woodwork occurs. sent14: if the fact that the avianness and the non-idiopathicness happens is false the reconciliation does not occur. sent15: the woodwork occurs. sent16: that the reconciliation does not occur and the woodwork does not occur prevents the nipping Pullman. sent17: the unpredictableness occurs. sent18: the idiopathicness triggers that not the reconciliation but the rejuvenation happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the reconciliation occurs if the woodwork occurs.

the reconciliation occurs if the woodwork occurs.

the woodwork occurs.

there exists something such that it is not a kind of a cerecloth.

sent1: the wellpoint nips typhus and it is anticancer if the fact that the bangle does not trademark is not incorrect. sent2: the segregation is a Milanese. sent3: if the segregation is Milanese and it is a trademarked the bangle is not a kind of a trademarked. sent4: if the iodide is not a coelogyne then that the Minoan is a keeping that does propagate is not right. sent5: the middle does not keep. sent6: if the scut is not a keeping then the fact that the cosigner does pedal but it is not a cerecloth does not hold. sent7: the wellpoint does not vacuum if it does nip typhus and is anticancer. sent8: the iodide is not a coelogyne if the wellpoint is not a kind of a vacuum.

(Ex): ¬{B}x

sent1: ¬{H}{g} -> ({F}{f} & {G}{f}) sent2: {J}{h} sent3: ({J}{h} & {H}{h}) -> ¬{H}{g} sent4: ¬{D}{e} -> ¬({A}{d} & {C}{d}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬({GB}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: ({F}{f} & {G}{f}) -> ¬{E}{f} sent8: ¬{E}{f} -> ¬{D}{e}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there are non-pedal things.

(Ex): ¬{GB}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a kind of a cerecloth. ; $context$ = sent1: the wellpoint nips typhus and it is anticancer if the fact that the bangle does not trademark is not incorrect. sent2: the segregation is a Milanese. sent3: if the segregation is Milanese and it is a trademarked the bangle is not a kind of a trademarked. sent4: if the iodide is not a coelogyne then that the Minoan is a keeping that does propagate is not right. sent5: the middle does not keep. sent6: if the scut is not a keeping then the fact that the cosigner does pedal but it is not a cerecloth does not hold. sent7: the wellpoint does not vacuum if it does nip typhus and is anticancer. sent8: the iodide is not a coelogyne if the wellpoint is not a kind of a vacuum. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the segregation is a Milanese.

the segregation is a Milanese.

if the iodide is not a coelogyne then that the Minoan is a keeping that does propagate is not right.

the mogul is a kind of a Scopolia that does not nip tandem.

sent1: the fact that the tandem is not a kind of a veld and/or it is Britannic is not correct. sent2: the araroba is not a Scopolia. sent3: the mogul does not nip tandem if it is not a kind of a technical and is Britannic. sent4: the mogul is not surmountable if it scales wanton and arouses. sent5: the fact that the mogul does not nip stress or it is a kind of an end or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that if the mogul does not filiate peritoneum but it is Britannic then the mogul does not scale araroba is not wrong. sent7: the anthurium does not nip tandem. sent8: the propenoate does arouse. sent9: the uraninite is not Britannic. sent10: that the mogul is not carinal or it does arouse or both is not correct. sent11: the mogul is a kind of a stateliness but it does not filiate JV. sent12: the mogul is not arsenious if it is not a Scopolia and does filiate jalousie. sent13: the mogul is carinal. sent14: that the mogul is Britannic is not incorrect. sent15: that the mogul is a kind of the Scopolia if that the mogul either is not non-carinal or does arouse or both is not right is correct. sent16: the mogul does scale araroba. sent17: everything is a kind of a taxation. sent18: something is Hindu if that it is not an end or it is carinal or both is not true. sent19: the mogul is not cryogenic. sent20: the mogul is not a kind of an immune. sent21: if the fact that the mogul is not carinal and/or it arouses is incorrect then it is a Scopolia. sent22: the fact that that the araroba is not the technical is correct if the araroba is not ontogenetic but it is a stateliness hold.

({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: ¬(¬{DT}{ga} v {AB}{ga}) sent2: ¬{A}{ep} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ({BI}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{GO}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{BM}{a} v {AH}{a}) sent6: (¬{FU}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{FK}{a} sent7: ¬{B}{ih} sent8: {C}{fc} sent9: ¬{AB}{fg} sent10: ¬(¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent11: ({BA}{a} & ¬{EE}{a}) sent12: (¬{A}{a} & {DP}{a}) -> ¬{JB}{a} sent13: {D}{a} sent14: {AB}{a} sent15: ¬({D}{a} v {C}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent16: {FK}{a} sent17: (x): {E}x sent18: (x): ¬(¬{AH}x v {D}x) -> {DF}x sent19: ¬{AG}{a} sent20: ¬{BR}{a} sent21: ¬(¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent22: (¬{AK}{ep} & {BA}{ep}) -> ¬{AA}{ep}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the mogul is a Scopolia but it does not nip tandem does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mogul is a kind of a Scopolia that does not nip tandem. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tandem is not a kind of a veld and/or it is Britannic is not correct. sent2: the araroba is not a Scopolia. sent3: the mogul does not nip tandem if it is not a kind of a technical and is Britannic. sent4: the mogul is not surmountable if it scales wanton and arouses. sent5: the fact that the mogul does not nip stress or it is a kind of an end or both does not hold. sent6: the fact that if the mogul does not filiate peritoneum but it is Britannic then the mogul does not scale araroba is not wrong. sent7: the anthurium does not nip tandem. sent8: the propenoate does arouse. sent9: the uraninite is not Britannic. sent10: that the mogul is not carinal or it does arouse or both is not correct. sent11: the mogul is a kind of a stateliness but it does not filiate JV. sent12: the mogul is not arsenious if it is not a Scopolia and does filiate jalousie. sent13: the mogul is carinal. sent14: that the mogul is Britannic is not incorrect. sent15: that the mogul is a kind of the Scopolia if that the mogul either is not non-carinal or does arouse or both is not right is correct. sent16: the mogul does scale araroba. sent17: everything is a kind of a taxation. sent18: something is Hindu if that it is not an end or it is carinal or both is not true. sent19: the mogul is not cryogenic. sent20: the mogul is not a kind of an immune. sent21: if the fact that the mogul is not carinal and/or it arouses is incorrect then it is a Scopolia. sent22: the fact that that the araroba is not the technical is correct if the araroba is not ontogenetic but it is a stateliness hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the mogul is not carinal and/or it arouses is incorrect then it is a Scopolia.

if the fact that the mogul is not carinal and/or it arouses is incorrect then it is a Scopolia.

that the mogul is not carinal or it does arouse or both is not correct.

the shellfire occurs and the localization occurs.

sent1: the scenicness happens. sent2: the ideographicness occurs but the none does not occur. sent3: the ideographicness occurs. sent4: that the shellfire occurs is caused by that the ideographicness but not the none happens. sent5: if that not the scenicness but the shellfire happens is incorrect the scandalization occurs.

({B} & {A})

sent1: {C} sent2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: {AA} sent4: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> {DO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

both the scandalization and the scission happens.

({DO} & {AC})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shellfire occurs and the localization occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the scenicness happens. sent2: the ideographicness occurs but the none does not occur. sent3: the ideographicness occurs. sent4: that the shellfire occurs is caused by that the ideographicness but not the none happens. sent5: if that not the scenicness but the shellfire happens is incorrect the scandalization occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the shellfire occurs is caused by that the ideographicness but not the none happens.

that the shellfire occurs is caused by that the ideographicness but not the none happens.

the ideographicness occurs but the none does not occur.

if that the creamery does scale Armenian hold the fact that the store does not nip Jason is not wrong.

sent1: the fact that the store nips Jason is not correct if the creamery scales Armenian and it is a Praetorian. sent2: if the store is Praetorian thing that does scale Armenian then the fact that the creamery does nip Jason hold. sent3: if the creamery scales Armenian the store does nip Jason.

{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if that the creamery does scale Armenian hold the fact that the store does not nip Jason is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the store nips Jason is not correct if the creamery scales Armenian and it is a Praetorian. sent2: if the store is Praetorian thing that does scale Armenian then the fact that the creamery does nip Jason hold. sent3: if the creamery scales Armenian the store does nip Jason. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the store nips Jason is not correct if the creamery scales Armenian and it is a Praetorian.

the fact that the store nips Jason is not correct if the creamery scales Armenian and it is a Praetorian.

if the creamery scales Armenian the store does nip Jason.

the private is not a kind of a flotsam.

sent1: the debacle is tetanic. sent2: the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold. sent3: if the debacle is tetanic the fact that the mayflower quells and is not a kind of a forehanded is not correct.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the private is not a kind of a flotsam. ; $context$ = sent1: the debacle is tetanic. sent2: the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold. sent3: if the debacle is tetanic the fact that the mayflower quells and is not a kind of a forehanded is not correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the private is not a kind of a flotsam.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the mayflower does quell but it is not a forehanded.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the mayflower quells but it is not a forehanded does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold.

If the private is not a kind of flotsam hold, the mayflower is not a forehand.

if the debacle is tetanic the fact that the mayflower quells and is not a kind of a forehanded is not correct.

the private is not a kind of a flotsam.

sent1: the debacle is tetanic. sent2: the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold. sent3: if the debacle is tetanic the fact that the mayflower quells and is not a kind of a forehanded is not correct.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the private is not a kind of a flotsam. ; $context$ = sent1: the debacle is tetanic. sent2: the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold. sent3: if the debacle is tetanic the fact that the mayflower quells and is not a kind of a forehanded is not correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the private is not a kind of a flotsam.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the mayflower does quell but it is not a forehanded.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the mayflower quells but it is not a forehanded does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mayflower quells and is not a forehanded if that the private is not a kind of a flotsam hold.

If the private is not a kind of hold, the mayflower is not a forehand.

the debacle is tetanic.

the Slovenian is not a kind of a Poa.

sent1: the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right. sent2: something is not a Poa if it is long-chain. sent3: something is not a kind of a bay and is not a kind of a bluepoint if it is sanitary. sent4: the fact that the fact that the Slovenian is not a kind of a legionnaire but it nips burrito is right does not hold. sent5: something is not noncompetitive and it is not long-chain if the fact that it does mold is right. sent6: if that something does not mold and it is not insensitive is incorrect it is not noncompetitive. sent7: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and aldermanic is not true. sent8: the sailfish is a starvation. sent9: the Slovenian is long-chain if that the sailfish is aldermanic is right. sent10: the sailfish is not a kind of a mercy. sent11: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and not a boycott is wrong. sent12: the sumac is not a cynicism. sent13: the fact that the Slovenian is both not a Poa and not aldermanic is not correct. sent14: the sealant is not insensitive if the fact that the metabolite is not curricular but it is insensitive hold. sent15: the Slovenian is aldermanic if that the sailfish is not long-chain and is not a Poa does not hold. sent16: the sailfish is not a Poa. sent17: something is not curricular and is insensitive if it is a bluepoint. sent18: if the fact that the sailfish is both not noncompetitive and not long-chain is false the Slovenian is a Poa. sent19: the fact that something is not noncompetitive but non-long-chain does not hold if it does mold. sent20: the metabolite is a bluepoint if the burrito is not a bay and it is not a bluepoint. sent21: the sailfish does mold if the sealant is not insensitive. sent22: the fact that the sailfish is not a cynicism and it is non-aldermanic is not true. sent23: the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not long-chain does not hold.

¬{A}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}x sent3: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: ¬(¬{ED}{b} & {FO}{b}) sent5: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: {HH}{a} sent9: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬{DM}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{DJ}{a}) sent12: ¬{AA}{bo} sent13: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent14: (¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent15: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{b} sent16: ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent18: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{b} sent19: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent20: (¬{H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent21: ¬{E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent22: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent23: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the Slovenian is a Poa.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Slovenian is not a kind of a Poa. ; $context$ = sent1: the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right. sent2: something is not a Poa if it is long-chain. sent3: something is not a kind of a bay and is not a kind of a bluepoint if it is sanitary. sent4: the fact that the fact that the Slovenian is not a kind of a legionnaire but it nips burrito is right does not hold. sent5: something is not noncompetitive and it is not long-chain if the fact that it does mold is right. sent6: if that something does not mold and it is not insensitive is incorrect it is not noncompetitive. sent7: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and aldermanic is not true. sent8: the sailfish is a starvation. sent9: the Slovenian is long-chain if that the sailfish is aldermanic is right. sent10: the sailfish is not a kind of a mercy. sent11: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and not a boycott is wrong. sent12: the sumac is not a cynicism. sent13: the fact that the Slovenian is both not a Poa and not aldermanic is not correct. sent14: the sealant is not insensitive if the fact that the metabolite is not curricular but it is insensitive hold. sent15: the Slovenian is aldermanic if that the sailfish is not long-chain and is not a Poa does not hold. sent16: the sailfish is not a Poa. sent17: something is not curricular and is insensitive if it is a bluepoint. sent18: if the fact that the sailfish is both not noncompetitive and not long-chain is false the Slovenian is a Poa. sent19: the fact that something is not noncompetitive but non-long-chain does not hold if it does mold. sent20: the metabolite is a bluepoint if the burrito is not a bay and it is not a bluepoint. sent21: the sailfish does mold if the sealant is not insensitive. sent22: the fact that the sailfish is not a cynicism and it is non-aldermanic is not true. sent23: the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not long-chain does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent22 -> int1: the Slovenian is long-chain.; sent2 -> int2: the Slovenian is not a Poa if it is long-chain.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right.

If the sailfish is not cynicism and it is not aldermanic, the Slovenian is long-chain.

the fact that the sailfish is not a cynicism and it is non-aldermanic is not true.

the Slovenian is not a kind of a Poa.

sent1: the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right. sent2: something is not a Poa if it is long-chain. sent3: something is not a kind of a bay and is not a kind of a bluepoint if it is sanitary. sent4: the fact that the fact that the Slovenian is not a kind of a legionnaire but it nips burrito is right does not hold. sent5: something is not noncompetitive and it is not long-chain if the fact that it does mold is right. sent6: if that something does not mold and it is not insensitive is incorrect it is not noncompetitive. sent7: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and aldermanic is not true. sent8: the sailfish is a starvation. sent9: the Slovenian is long-chain if that the sailfish is aldermanic is right. sent10: the sailfish is not a kind of a mercy. sent11: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and not a boycott is wrong. sent12: the sumac is not a cynicism. sent13: the fact that the Slovenian is both not a Poa and not aldermanic is not correct. sent14: the sealant is not insensitive if the fact that the metabolite is not curricular but it is insensitive hold. sent15: the Slovenian is aldermanic if that the sailfish is not long-chain and is not a Poa does not hold. sent16: the sailfish is not a Poa. sent17: something is not curricular and is insensitive if it is a bluepoint. sent18: if the fact that the sailfish is both not noncompetitive and not long-chain is false the Slovenian is a Poa. sent19: the fact that something is not noncompetitive but non-long-chain does not hold if it does mold. sent20: the metabolite is a bluepoint if the burrito is not a bay and it is not a bluepoint. sent21: the sailfish does mold if the sealant is not insensitive. sent22: the fact that the sailfish is not a cynicism and it is non-aldermanic is not true. sent23: the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not long-chain does not hold.

¬{A}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}x sent3: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: ¬(¬{ED}{b} & {FO}{b}) sent5: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: {HH}{a} sent9: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬{DM}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{DJ}{a}) sent12: ¬{AA}{bo} sent13: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent14: (¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent15: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{b} sent16: ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent18: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{b} sent19: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent20: (¬{H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent21: ¬{E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent22: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent23: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the Slovenian is a Poa.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Slovenian is not a kind of a Poa. ; $context$ = sent1: the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right. sent2: something is not a Poa if it is long-chain. sent3: something is not a kind of a bay and is not a kind of a bluepoint if it is sanitary. sent4: the fact that the fact that the Slovenian is not a kind of a legionnaire but it nips burrito is right does not hold. sent5: something is not noncompetitive and it is not long-chain if the fact that it does mold is right. sent6: if that something does not mold and it is not insensitive is incorrect it is not noncompetitive. sent7: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and aldermanic is not true. sent8: the sailfish is a starvation. sent9: the Slovenian is long-chain if that the sailfish is aldermanic is right. sent10: the sailfish is not a kind of a mercy. sent11: the fact that the sailfish is both not a cynicism and not a boycott is wrong. sent12: the sumac is not a cynicism. sent13: the fact that the Slovenian is both not a Poa and not aldermanic is not correct. sent14: the sealant is not insensitive if the fact that the metabolite is not curricular but it is insensitive hold. sent15: the Slovenian is aldermanic if that the sailfish is not long-chain and is not a Poa does not hold. sent16: the sailfish is not a Poa. sent17: something is not curricular and is insensitive if it is a bluepoint. sent18: if the fact that the sailfish is both not noncompetitive and not long-chain is false the Slovenian is a Poa. sent19: the fact that something is not noncompetitive but non-long-chain does not hold if it does mold. sent20: the metabolite is a bluepoint if the burrito is not a bay and it is not a bluepoint. sent21: the sailfish does mold if the sealant is not insensitive. sent22: the fact that the sailfish is not a cynicism and it is non-aldermanic is not true. sent23: the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not long-chain does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent22 -> int1: the Slovenian is long-chain.; sent2 -> int2: the Slovenian is not a Poa if it is long-chain.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Slovenian is long-chain if the fact that the sailfish is not a kind of a cynicism and it is not aldermanic is not right.

If the sailfish isn't cynicism and it isn't aldermanic, the Slovenian is long-chain.

something is not a Poa if it is long-chain.

the meteorite filiates predicator.

sent1: the fact that the hone is not a kind of a Lithuanian and it is not a Kurdish is not correct. sent2: something is not ethereal if it is a Lithuanian. sent3: if the meteorite does filiate predicator it is not a Kurdish. sent4: something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent5: if the meteorite is ethereal but it does not filiate predicator then the hone is not non-ballistics. sent6: the hone is not ballistics. sent7: the fact that the hone is a Kurdish is right if the meteorite is not ballistics and it does not filiate predicator.

{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the hone is not a kind of a disgusted and is not eugenic is wrong.

¬(¬{IB}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the meteorite filiates predicator. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hone is not a kind of a Lithuanian and it is not a Kurdish is not correct. sent2: something is not ethereal if it is a Lithuanian. sent3: if the meteorite does filiate predicator it is not a Kurdish. sent4: something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent5: if the meteorite is ethereal but it does not filiate predicator then the hone is not non-ballistics. sent6: the hone is not ballistics. sent7: the fact that the hone is a Kurdish is right if the meteorite is not ballistics and it does not filiate predicator. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold.

If it is not a kind of Kurdish that it is not ethereal.

the fact that the hone is not a kind of a Lithuanian and it is not a Kurdish is not correct.

the meteorite filiates predicator.

sent1: the fact that the hone is not a kind of a Lithuanian and it is not a Kurdish is not correct. sent2: something is not ethereal if it is a Lithuanian. sent3: if the meteorite does filiate predicator it is not a Kurdish. sent4: something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent5: if the meteorite is ethereal but it does not filiate predicator then the hone is not non-ballistics. sent6: the hone is not ballistics. sent7: the fact that the hone is a Kurdish is right if the meteorite is not ballistics and it does not filiate predicator.

{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the hone is not a kind of a disgusted and is not eugenic is wrong.

¬(¬{IB}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the meteorite filiates predicator. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hone is not a kind of a Lithuanian and it is not a Kurdish is not correct. sent2: something is not ethereal if it is a Lithuanian. sent3: if the meteorite does filiate predicator it is not a Kurdish. sent4: something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent5: if the meteorite is ethereal but it does not filiate predicator then the hone is not non-ballistics. sent6: the hone is not ballistics. sent7: the fact that the hone is a Kurdish is right if the meteorite is not ballistics and it does not filiate predicator. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not ethereal if that it is not a Lithuanian and is not a kind of a Kurdish does not hold.

If it is not a kind of Kurdish that it is, then it is not ethereal.

the hone is not ballistics.

the Jewbush is a kind of a Cuban.

sent1: if the paynim is both not fascista and a spastic then it is not stenographic. sent2: if the samisen does not scale briard the boat is stenographic. sent3: the paynim scales Persephone. sent4: if the paynim is not unintrusive the Vela scales Persephone. sent5: the Jewbush is not a kind of a Cuban if the fact that the Vela is stenographic but it is not phonic is wrong. sent6: the fact that the paynim is a kind of a fascista is not correct. sent7: the samisen does not scale briard if the Vela is unintrusive. sent8: if something is stenographic then it does not scale Persephone and/or it does not scale briard. sent9: the Jewbush is stenographic if the paynim is not stenographic and is a kind of a lacteal. sent10: The Persephone scales paynim. sent11: the fact that the Vela is phonic and it is unintrusive is false. sent12: the Jewbush is a Cuban if the boat is stenographic. sent13: that the Vela is both phonic and not intrusive does not hold if the paynim does scale Persephone. sent14: that the samisen does not scale briard is true if that that the Vela is both phonic and not unintrusive is wrong hold. sent15: the paynim is spastic and is unseductive. sent16: if something does not scale Persephone or does not scale briard or both then it is not a kind of a Cuban.

{D}{e}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the Jewbush is non-Cuban is correct.

¬{D}{e}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Jewbush is a kind of a Cuban. ; $context$ = sent1: if the paynim is both not fascista and a spastic then it is not stenographic. sent2: if the samisen does not scale briard the boat is stenographic. sent3: the paynim scales Persephone. sent4: if the paynim is not unintrusive the Vela scales Persephone. sent5: the Jewbush is not a kind of a Cuban if the fact that the Vela is stenographic but it is not phonic is wrong. sent6: the fact that the paynim is a kind of a fascista is not correct. sent7: the samisen does not scale briard if the Vela is unintrusive. sent8: if something is stenographic then it does not scale Persephone and/or it does not scale briard. sent9: the Jewbush is stenographic if the paynim is not stenographic and is a kind of a lacteal. sent10: The Persephone scales paynim. sent11: the fact that the Vela is phonic and it is unintrusive is false. sent12: the Jewbush is a Cuban if the boat is stenographic. sent13: that the Vela is both phonic and not intrusive does not hold if the paynim does scale Persephone. sent14: that the samisen does not scale briard is true if that that the Vela is both phonic and not unintrusive is wrong hold. sent15: the paynim is spastic and is unseductive. sent16: if something does not scale Persephone or does not scale briard or both then it is not a kind of a Cuban. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Jewbush is a Cuban if the boat is stenographic.

the Jewbush is a Cuban if the boat is stenographic.

the fact that the paynim is a kind of a fascista is not correct.

that the fact that the rhinovirus is not a kind of a pioneer but it is a Persephone does not hold is not incorrect.

sent1: the CPU does filiate Ventose and does dispose if the spouse does not promise. sent2: everything is not a mismanagement but foreign. sent3: the shag is a Persephone or it nips superposition or both if there exists something such that it filiates Ventose. sent4: the rhinovirus is a pyrography if the shag nips superposition. sent5: if the shag is a kind of a Persephone the rhinovirus is a pyrography. sent6: something is not a pioneer and is a Persephone if that it nips superposition is right. sent7: if that something is not a mismanagement or it does snowmobile or both is not incorrect the spouse does not promise. sent8: there exists something such that it does not nip superposition. sent9: the fact that the rhinovirus is not a pioneer and is a Persephone does not hold if there is something such that it does not nip superposition.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the rhinovirus is not a pioneer but a Persephone hold.

(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the rhinovirus is not a kind of a pioneer but it is a Persephone does not hold is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the CPU does filiate Ventose and does dispose if the spouse does not promise. sent2: everything is not a mismanagement but foreign. sent3: the shag is a Persephone or it nips superposition or both if there exists something such that it filiates Ventose. sent4: the rhinovirus is a pyrography if the shag nips superposition. sent5: if the shag is a kind of a Persephone the rhinovirus is a pyrography. sent6: something is not a pioneer and is a Persephone if that it nips superposition is right. sent7: if that something is not a mismanagement or it does snowmobile or both is not incorrect the spouse does not promise. sent8: there exists something such that it does not nip superposition. sent9: the fact that the rhinovirus is not a pioneer and is a Persephone does not hold if there is something such that it does not nip superposition. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not nip superposition.

there exists something such that it does not nip superposition.

the fact that the rhinovirus is not a pioneer and is a Persephone does not hold if there is something such that it does not nip superposition.

the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both.

sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: {C}{do} sent2: ({EC}{a} & {JH}{a}) sent3: {AG}{b} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{H}x & {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{CH}{b} v {I}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {I}x) -> ¬{I}x sent11: ({A}{b} & {CJ}{b}) sent12: ¬{D}{ij} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ¬(¬{K}{d} & {I}{d}) sent15: {C}{cq} sent16: {E}{im} sent17: {F}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent18: ¬{D}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the chute does not scale firefly or crabs elytron or both.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is not colorful.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the chute does not crack.; sent19 -> int3: if the chute does not crack then that it does not scale firefly or it crabs elytron or both does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne.

Like a Montaigne, the flophouse is a kind of SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the flophouse is colorless.

the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both.

sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: {C}{do} sent2: ({EC}{a} & {JH}{a}) sent3: {AG}{b} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{H}x & {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{CH}{b} v {I}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {I}x) -> ¬{I}x sent11: ({A}{b} & {CJ}{b}) sent12: ¬{D}{ij} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ¬(¬{K}{d} & {I}{d}) sent15: {C}{cq} sent16: {E}{im} sent17: {F}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent18: ¬{D}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the chute does not scale firefly or crabs elytron or both.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is not colorful.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the chute does not crack.; sent19 -> int3: if the chute does not crack then that it does not scale firefly or it crabs elytron or both does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne.

The flophouse is similar to Montaigne in that it is a kind of SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless.

the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both.

sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: {C}{do} sent2: ({EC}{a} & {JH}{a}) sent3: {AG}{b} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{H}x & {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{CH}{b} v {I}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {I}x) -> ¬{I}x sent11: ({A}{b} & {CJ}{b}) sent12: ¬{D}{ij} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ¬(¬{K}{d} & {I}{d}) sent15: {C}{cq} sent16: {E}{im} sent17: {F}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent18: ¬{D}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the chute does not scale firefly or crabs elytron or both.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chute does not scale firefly or it does crab elytron or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrower is a kind of a cracking. sent2: the flophouse is a kind of an oblique and it is a delavirdine. sent3: the chute scales tailfin. sent4: the chute does scale firefly. sent5: if that something is colorless or it is not a kind of a cracking or both is not right it is not a Montaigne. sent6: the chute is not a cracking if the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is colorless. sent7: that something is not a Parr and does undertake is not wrong if it is not a modeler. sent8: the flophouse is colorless. sent9: that the chute is either not a mulch or a modeler or both is not true. sent10: something is not a kind of a modeler if the fact that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler is wrong. sent11: the chute is a Montaigne and is campylotropous. sent12: the letters does not crab elytron. sent13: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne. sent14: if the araroba does not nip Formicidae that it does not scale araroba and it is a modeler does not hold. sent15: the criminal is a cracking. sent16: the burdock scales firefly. sent17: that the fact that the flophouse is either colorless or not a cracking or both is not wrong does not hold if the chlorambucil does waste. sent18: if the chute does not crab elytron then it is a Montaigne. sent19: if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct. sent20: the chute does not scale firefly and/or it does crab elytron if the flophouse is not a Montaigne. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne and it is not colorful.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the chute does not crack.; sent19 -> int3: if the chute does not crack then that it does not scale firefly or it crabs elytron or both does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the flophouse is a kind of a Montaigne.

The flophouse is similar to Montaigne, in that it is a kind of SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

if something is not a cracking then the fact that it either does not scale firefly or does crab elytron or both is not correct.

the Liechtensteiner is not hydraulics.

sent1: the college does not filiate abbreviation if the fact that the boneshaker filiate abbreviation and nips Brezhnev does not hold. sent2: if the funicle is a kind of non-hydraulics thing that does nip associability the Liechtensteiner is not a kumquat. sent3: if the funicle is not a kumquat then that it nips associability is not incorrect. sent4: the funicle does nip associability. sent5: something is not a kumquat if the fact that it is a kumquat and it packs is wrong. sent6: the Liechtensteiner is not a Muslim if the funicle does not nip associability and is hydraulics. sent7: the funicle is not a Muslim if the Liechtensteiner does not nip associability but it is hydraulics. sent8: something that does not filiate abbreviation is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that is not genetic. sent9: the funicle does not nip associability if the fact that the Liechtensteiner is non-Muslim a kumquat is not wrong. sent10: if that the mustelid scales litchi and mourns is incorrect the fact that it does not scales litchi is true. sent11: the fact that the funicle is a kind of non-Muslim thing that does nip associability hold if it is not a kumquat. sent12: the Liechtensteiner is not hydraulics if the funicle is not a kind of a Muslim and nips associability. sent13: the Liechtensteiner is not a kumquat. sent14: that the mustelid does scale litchi and it mourns is wrong. sent15: the tooth is non-paradigmatic if the college is not non-paradigmatic and is not genetic. sent16: the Liechtensteiner does nip oration if it is not hydraulics. sent17: something is a utterer if it is not paradigmatic. sent18: the funicle is uninucleate. sent19: that the funicle either does not pack or is not a kumquat or both is not true if the tooth is a utterer.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Liechtensteiner is hydraulics.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Liechtensteiner is not hydraulics. ; $context$ = sent1: the college does not filiate abbreviation if the fact that the boneshaker filiate abbreviation and nips Brezhnev does not hold. sent2: if the funicle is a kind of non-hydraulics thing that does nip associability the Liechtensteiner is not a kumquat. sent3: if the funicle is not a kumquat then that it nips associability is not incorrect. sent4: the funicle does nip associability. sent5: something is not a kumquat if the fact that it is a kumquat and it packs is wrong. sent6: the Liechtensteiner is not a Muslim if the funicle does not nip associability and is hydraulics. sent7: the funicle is not a Muslim if the Liechtensteiner does not nip associability but it is hydraulics. sent8: something that does not filiate abbreviation is a kind of non-paradigmatic thing that is not genetic. sent9: the funicle does not nip associability if the fact that the Liechtensteiner is non-Muslim a kumquat is not wrong. sent10: if that the mustelid scales litchi and mourns is incorrect the fact that it does not scales litchi is true. sent11: the fact that the funicle is a kind of non-Muslim thing that does nip associability hold if it is not a kumquat. sent12: the Liechtensteiner is not hydraulics if the funicle is not a kind of a Muslim and nips associability. sent13: the Liechtensteiner is not a kumquat. sent14: that the mustelid does scale litchi and it mourns is wrong. sent15: the tooth is non-paradigmatic if the college is not non-paradigmatic and is not genetic. sent16: the Liechtensteiner does nip oration if it is not hydraulics. sent17: something is a utterer if it is not paradigmatic. sent18: the funicle is uninucleate. sent19: that the funicle either does not pack or is not a kumquat or both is not true if the tooth is a utterer. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is a utterer if it is not paradigmatic.

something is a utterer if it is not paradigmatic.

if that the mustelid scales litchi and mourns is incorrect the fact that it does not scales litchi is true.

the footing occurs.

sent1: the indulgence does not occur if that the riposte and the footing occurs is incorrect. sent2: that the immobilization does not occur brings about that the riposte happens and the footing occurs. sent3: if the fact that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness happens is not right then that the footing does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the scaling salmonberry does not occur then the foot does not occur. sent5: the coarseness does not occur if the fact that both the parameter and the waltz happens is not true. sent6: that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness occurs is not true. sent7: the squeezing does not occur if that both the filiating switcher and the shears occurs is wrong. sent8: if the fact that both the Tibetan and the gracefulness happens does not hold then the fact that the nipping Uighur does not occur is right. sent9: that both the riposting and the footing happens is not right if the immobilization does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{FI} sent2: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent3: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬({GS} & {FE}) -> ¬{DT} sent6: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬({J} & {HM}) -> ¬{FU} sent8: ¬({FF} & {DO}) -> ¬{FP} sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the footing happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the footing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the indulgence does not occur if that the riposte and the footing occurs is incorrect. sent2: that the immobilization does not occur brings about that the riposte happens and the footing occurs. sent3: if the fact that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness happens is not right then that the footing does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the scaling salmonberry does not occur then the foot does not occur. sent5: the coarseness does not occur if the fact that both the parameter and the waltz happens is not true. sent6: that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness occurs is not true. sent7: the squeezing does not occur if that both the filiating switcher and the shears occurs is wrong. sent8: if the fact that both the Tibetan and the gracefulness happens does not hold then the fact that the nipping Uighur does not occur is right. sent9: that both the riposting and the footing happens is not right if the immobilization does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness happens is not right then that the footing does not occur is not wrong.

if the fact that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness happens is not right then that the footing does not occur is not wrong.

that both the scaling salmonberry and the splashiness occurs is not true.

the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness.

sent1: the Chinook does sentimentalise. sent2: there exists something such that it does sentimentalise. sent3: the Chinook does not sentimentalise if something that filiates scramble nips gracelessness. sent4: something is both a Monod and ontological. sent5: the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness if something that filiates scramble sentimentalises. sent6: something filiates scramble. sent7: the Taurus is a kind of a bulwark that filiates scramble. sent8: something is a kind of a shipper that does filiate Ontario. sent9: the Chinook does filiate scramble. sent10: if something sentimentalises and nips gracelessness the fact that the Chinook does not filiate scramble is not incorrect. sent11: The scramble does filiate Chinook. sent12: the Chinook is a naboom and dependable.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({CO}x & {FN}x) sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: ({FM}{ht} & {A}{ht}) sent8: (Ex): ({DD}x & {JI}x) sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ({EN}{a} & {T}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness. ; $context$ = sent1: the Chinook does sentimentalise. sent2: there exists something such that it does sentimentalise. sent3: the Chinook does not sentimentalise if something that filiates scramble nips gracelessness. sent4: something is both a Monod and ontological. sent5: the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness if something that filiates scramble sentimentalises. sent6: something filiates scramble. sent7: the Taurus is a kind of a bulwark that filiates scramble. sent8: something is a kind of a shipper that does filiate Ontario. sent9: the Chinook does filiate scramble. sent10: if something sentimentalises and nips gracelessness the fact that the Chinook does not filiate scramble is not incorrect. sent11: The scramble does filiate Chinook. sent12: the Chinook is a naboom and dependable. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the Chinook does filiate scramble and it sentimentalises.; int1 -> int2: something filiates scramble and it sentimentalises.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Chinook does filiate scramble.

filiate scramble by the hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaii

the Chinook does sentimentalise.

the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness.

sent1: the Chinook does sentimentalise. sent2: there exists something such that it does sentimentalise. sent3: the Chinook does not sentimentalise if something that filiates scramble nips gracelessness. sent4: something is both a Monod and ontological. sent5: the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness if something that filiates scramble sentimentalises. sent6: something filiates scramble. sent7: the Taurus is a kind of a bulwark that filiates scramble. sent8: something is a kind of a shipper that does filiate Ontario. sent9: the Chinook does filiate scramble. sent10: if something sentimentalises and nips gracelessness the fact that the Chinook does not filiate scramble is not incorrect. sent11: The scramble does filiate Chinook. sent12: the Chinook is a naboom and dependable.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({CO}x & {FN}x) sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: ({FM}{ht} & {A}{ht}) sent8: (Ex): ({DD}x & {JI}x) sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ({EN}{a} & {T}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness. ; $context$ = sent1: the Chinook does sentimentalise. sent2: there exists something such that it does sentimentalise. sent3: the Chinook does not sentimentalise if something that filiates scramble nips gracelessness. sent4: something is both a Monod and ontological. sent5: the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness if something that filiates scramble sentimentalises. sent6: something filiates scramble. sent7: the Taurus is a kind of a bulwark that filiates scramble. sent8: something is a kind of a shipper that does filiate Ontario. sent9: the Chinook does filiate scramble. sent10: if something sentimentalises and nips gracelessness the fact that the Chinook does not filiate scramble is not incorrect. sent11: The scramble does filiate Chinook. sent12: the Chinook is a naboom and dependable. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the Chinook does filiate scramble and it sentimentalises.; int1 -> int2: something filiates scramble and it sentimentalises.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Chinook does filiate scramble.

filiate scramble is done by the hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian hawaiian

the fenoprofen does not nip gracelessness if something that filiates scramble sentimentalises.

the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy happens is false.

sent1: if the self-fertilization does not occur then that both the inclusion and the curliness occurs is not right. sent2: the melodicness happens. sent3: that the sensitization does not occur prevents the anuranness. sent4: the fact that the gangrene and the crabbing radioscopy happens is right if the domestication does not occur. sent5: if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens. sent6: the return happens and the gangrene happens. sent7: if the melodicness does not occur the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy occurs is wrong. sent8: if that the ambulatoriness and the non-yogisticness happens is not correct then the cacophony does not occur. sent9: the domestication does not occur if that the inclusion happens and the curliness happens is wrong. sent10: both the crabbing radioscopy and the domestication occurs. sent11: if both the non-lucifugousness and the non-melodicness happens then the incidentness happens. sent12: the domestication occurs. sent13: that the reverence and the mamboing happens triggers that the self-fertilization does not occur. sent14: the melodicness does not occur and the amphotericness does not occur if the anuranness does not occur. sent15: the lucifugousness does not occur but the filiating manslaughter happens if the cacophony does not occur.

¬({B} & {C})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

both the incidentness and the gangrene happens.

({BR} & {HT})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the self-fertilization does not occur then that both the inclusion and the curliness occurs is not right. sent2: the melodicness happens. sent3: that the sensitization does not occur prevents the anuranness. sent4: the fact that the gangrene and the crabbing radioscopy happens is right if the domestication does not occur. sent5: if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens. sent6: the return happens and the gangrene happens. sent7: if the melodicness does not occur the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy occurs is wrong. sent8: if that the ambulatoriness and the non-yogisticness happens is not correct then the cacophony does not occur. sent9: the domestication does not occur if that the inclusion happens and the curliness happens is wrong. sent10: both the crabbing radioscopy and the domestication occurs. sent11: if both the non-lucifugousness and the non-melodicness happens then the incidentness happens. sent12: the domestication occurs. sent13: that the reverence and the mamboing happens triggers that the self-fertilization does not occur. sent14: the melodicness does not occur and the amphotericness does not occur if the anuranness does not occur. sent15: the lucifugousness does not occur but the filiating manslaughter happens if the cacophony does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the lucifugousness happens is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int2: the crabbing radioscopy occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens.

The melodicness will happen if it occurs.

the melodicness happens.

the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy happens is false.

sent1: if the self-fertilization does not occur then that both the inclusion and the curliness occurs is not right. sent2: the melodicness happens. sent3: that the sensitization does not occur prevents the anuranness. sent4: the fact that the gangrene and the crabbing radioscopy happens is right if the domestication does not occur. sent5: if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens. sent6: the return happens and the gangrene happens. sent7: if the melodicness does not occur the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy occurs is wrong. sent8: if that the ambulatoriness and the non-yogisticness happens is not correct then the cacophony does not occur. sent9: the domestication does not occur if that the inclusion happens and the curliness happens is wrong. sent10: both the crabbing radioscopy and the domestication occurs. sent11: if both the non-lucifugousness and the non-melodicness happens then the incidentness happens. sent12: the domestication occurs. sent13: that the reverence and the mamboing happens triggers that the self-fertilization does not occur. sent14: the melodicness does not occur and the amphotericness does not occur if the anuranness does not occur. sent15: the lucifugousness does not occur but the filiating manslaughter happens if the cacophony does not occur.

¬({B} & {C})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

both the incidentness and the gangrene happens.

({BR} & {HT})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the self-fertilization does not occur then that both the inclusion and the curliness occurs is not right. sent2: the melodicness happens. sent3: that the sensitization does not occur prevents the anuranness. sent4: the fact that the gangrene and the crabbing radioscopy happens is right if the domestication does not occur. sent5: if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens. sent6: the return happens and the gangrene happens. sent7: if the melodicness does not occur the fact that both the lucifugousness and the crabbing radioscopy occurs is wrong. sent8: if that the ambulatoriness and the non-yogisticness happens is not correct then the cacophony does not occur. sent9: the domestication does not occur if that the inclusion happens and the curliness happens is wrong. sent10: both the crabbing radioscopy and the domestication occurs. sent11: if both the non-lucifugousness and the non-melodicness happens then the incidentness happens. sent12: the domestication occurs. sent13: that the reverence and the mamboing happens triggers that the self-fertilization does not occur. sent14: the melodicness does not occur and the amphotericness does not occur if the anuranness does not occur. sent15: the lucifugousness does not occur but the filiating manslaughter happens if the cacophony does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the lucifugousness happens is not incorrect.; sent10 -> int2: the crabbing radioscopy occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the melodicness occurs then the lucifugousness happens.

The melodicness happens.

both the crabbing radioscopy and the domestication occurs.

the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie.

sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent2: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): (¬{DA}x & {EN}x) -> {DI}x sent5: {CH}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {D}x) -> {B}x sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: (x): {HH}x -> ¬{BI}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AS}{hg} & {AB}{hg}) sent16: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the fuchsia is a kind of a pantie.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent9 -> int1: the fuchsia does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality.; sent7 -> int2: the fuchsia is a single if it does not scale OPV and it is an abnormality.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fuchsia is a single.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the fuchsia is not a pantie is not wrong if it is a single.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

If the decipherer does channelize, the fuchsia is an abnormality.

the decipherer channelizes.

the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie.

sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent2: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): (¬{DA}x & {EN}x) -> {DI}x sent5: {CH}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {D}x) -> {B}x sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: (x): {HH}x -> ¬{BI}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AS}{hg} & {AB}{hg}) sent16: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the fuchsia is a kind of a pantie.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent9 -> int1: the fuchsia does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality.; sent7 -> int2: the fuchsia is a single if it does not scale OPV and it is an abnormality.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fuchsia is a single.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the fuchsia is not a pantie is not wrong if it is a single.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

The fuchsia is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single.

the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie.

sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent2: {A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): (¬{DA}x & {EN}x) -> {DI}x sent5: {CH}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {D}x) -> {B}x sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: (x): {HH}x -> ¬{BI}x sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AS}{hg} & {AB}{hg}) sent16: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

the fuchsia is a kind of a pantie.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fuchsia is not a kind of a pantie. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of non-single a pantie it does channelize. sent2: if the decipherer channelizes the fuchsia is an abnormality. sent3: something that is not impolite either is not single or is not a pantie or both. sent4: if something does not nip Uighur and pins then it is animalistic. sent5: the decipherer is a kind of a arachnoid. sent6: something is not a pantie if it is a single. sent7: if something does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality it is a kind of a single. sent8: something is a single if that it is single thing that is impolite does not hold. sent9: the decipherer channelizes. sent10: if that something does not channelize and it is not a kind of a pantie does not hold then it is a pantie. sent11: the fact that the fuchsia does not channelize and is not a pantie does not hold if the decipherer is a single. sent12: something is not a dioon if the fact that it is a Joliot hold. sent13: something is not single if it channelizes. sent14: if the fact that the decipherer does not ingrain is true then the fact that it is not a kind of a single and it is impolite is false. sent15: if there exists something such that it does not channelize the oligarch does not sprout but it is an abnormality. sent16: the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent9 -> int1: the fuchsia does not scale OPV but it is an abnormality.; sent7 -> int2: the fuchsia is a single if it does not scale OPV and it is an abnormality.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fuchsia is a single.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the fuchsia is not a pantie is not wrong if it is a single.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fuchsia does not scale OPV and is an abnormality if the decipherer does channelize.

The fuchsia is an abnormality if the decipherer channels it.

something is not a pantie if it is a single.

the chaining occurs and/or the avuncularness occurs.

sent1: if that the cercarialness happens is not incorrect then the chaining happens. sent2: if the javelin occurs that both the seriousness and the non-omissiveness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the cercarialness occurs is not wrong if the fact that both the scaling containerful and the non-pessimisticness happens is not true. sent4: the impureness happens. sent5: if the impureness happens that the scaling containerful and the pessimisticness occurs does not hold.

({C} v {D})

sent1: {B} -> {C} sent2: {GH} -> ¬({EQ} & ¬{HD}) sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} sent5: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chaining occurs and/or the avuncularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the cercarialness happens is not incorrect then the chaining happens. sent2: if the javelin occurs that both the seriousness and the non-omissiveness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the cercarialness occurs is not wrong if the fact that both the scaling containerful and the non-pessimisticness happens is not true. sent4: the impureness happens. sent5: if the impureness happens that the scaling containerful and the pessimisticness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the cercarialness occurs is not wrong if the fact that both the scaling containerful and the non-pessimisticness happens is not true.

that the cercarialness occurs is not wrong if the fact that both the scaling containerful and the non-pessimisticness happens is not true.

if the javelin occurs that both the seriousness and the non-omissiveness occurs does not hold.

that the watercolorist is not a safebreaker or not a heuristic or both is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the watercolorist is not starchy or it is not a kind of a safebreaker or both does not hold. sent2: the Sind is a heuristic. sent3: if the fact that the syconium is extinct and is not illegible is not right the debacle is not illegible. sent4: something is not a safebreaker or is not a heuristic or both if it is not starchy. sent5: if the debacle is not starchy then the fact that the watercolorist is not a kind of a safebreaker or is not heuristic or both does not hold. sent6: the antlion does not supple. sent7: if the antlion is a Zoroastrian and supples then the debacle is not starchy. sent8: the fact that the antlion is not starchy or it is not heuristic or both is not correct if the watercolorist does not supple. sent9: the watercolorist is a Zoroastrian and is not a metrification. sent10: if the debacle is not starchy the watercolorist is a safebreaker. sent11: the fact that the fact that something is usual but it is not starchy is not false is not right if it is a encephalogram. sent12: the antlion is a kind of a Zoroastrian but it does not supple. sent13: if the debacle is not illegible then the antlion is a encephalogram and is a Bahamian. sent14: the fact that the watercolorist does not supple or it is not a Zoroastrian or both does not hold if the antlion is not a safebreaker. sent15: that the debacle either is not a safebreaker or is not a heuristic or both does not hold if the watercolorist is not starchy. sent16: if the syconium does not filiate Eisenstein then it crowds. sent17: if something crowds that it is a kind of a imbrication is correct. sent18: the debacle is a kind of a heuristic. sent19: if something is a imbrication then that it is extinct and it is not illegible is not right. sent20: the debacle does not supple. sent21: the watercolorist is not starchy if the fact that the antlion is not unusual but starchy is not true.

¬(¬{C}{c} v ¬{A}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the watercolorist is not a kind of a safebreaker and/or is not a heuristic.

(¬{C}{c} v ¬{A}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the watercolorist is not a safebreaker or not a heuristic or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the watercolorist is not starchy or it is not a kind of a safebreaker or both does not hold. sent2: the Sind is a heuristic. sent3: if the fact that the syconium is extinct and is not illegible is not right the debacle is not illegible. sent4: something is not a safebreaker or is not a heuristic or both if it is not starchy. sent5: if the debacle is not starchy then the fact that the watercolorist is not a kind of a safebreaker or is not heuristic or both does not hold. sent6: the antlion does not supple. sent7: if the antlion is a Zoroastrian and supples then the debacle is not starchy. sent8: the fact that the antlion is not starchy or it is not heuristic or both is not correct if the watercolorist does not supple. sent9: the watercolorist is a Zoroastrian and is not a metrification. sent10: if the debacle is not starchy the watercolorist is a safebreaker. sent11: the fact that the fact that something is usual but it is not starchy is not false is not right if it is a encephalogram. sent12: the antlion is a kind of a Zoroastrian but it does not supple. sent13: if the debacle is not illegible then the antlion is a encephalogram and is a Bahamian. sent14: the fact that the watercolorist does not supple or it is not a Zoroastrian or both does not hold if the antlion is not a safebreaker. sent15: that the debacle either is not a safebreaker or is not a heuristic or both does not hold if the watercolorist is not starchy. sent16: if the syconium does not filiate Eisenstein then it crowds. sent17: if something crowds that it is a kind of a imbrication is correct. sent18: the debacle is a kind of a heuristic. sent19: if something is a imbrication then that it is extinct and it is not illegible is not right. sent20: the debacle does not supple. sent21: the watercolorist is not starchy if the fact that the antlion is not unusual but starchy is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the syconium does not filiate Eisenstein then it crowds.

if the syconium does not filiate Eisenstein then it crowds.

if the debacle is not starchy the watercolorist is a safebreaker.

the guitar is incompressible.

sent1: that the guitar does nip scaling and is a OPV does not hold. sent2: if that the guitar is a OPV that nips heaume is false then it is not incompressible. sent3: if the fact that that the guitar does apologize and does till is not true hold then it is not noninfectious. sent4: if that something nips theatrical and it is a regosol does not hold then it does not nip heaume. sent5: if that the sunchoke is not a prince's-feather is not incorrect that it does scale cowrie and it is noninfectious is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the guitar is a kind of a OPV and it nips heaume is wrong. sent7: the fact that the guitar is a kind of a Bohemian that nips heaume is not true. sent8: the fact that the guitar is incompressible and it is dispensable is incorrect. sent9: if that the anesthesiologist is qualitative and it is amoristic does not hold it is not a Prussian. sent10: the sluicegate does not nip heaume. sent11: the guitar is not incompressible if it does not nip heaume.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬({BS}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬({ES}{a} & {GN}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({GS}x & {GR}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬{C}{c} -> ¬({D}{c} & {A}{c}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬({FQ}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬({B}{a} & {HJ}{a}) sent9: ¬({DF}{eg} & {GE}{eg}) -> ¬{DH}{eg} sent10: ¬{AB}{hs} sent11: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

if the fact that the T-bar nips theatrical and it is a regosol is false it does not nip heaume.

¬({GS}{p} & {GR}{p}) -> ¬{AB}{p}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the guitar is incompressible. ; $context$ = sent1: that the guitar does nip scaling and is a OPV does not hold. sent2: if that the guitar is a OPV that nips heaume is false then it is not incompressible. sent3: if the fact that that the guitar does apologize and does till is not true hold then it is not noninfectious. sent4: if that something nips theatrical and it is a regosol does not hold then it does not nip heaume. sent5: if that the sunchoke is not a prince's-feather is not incorrect that it does scale cowrie and it is noninfectious is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the guitar is a kind of a OPV and it nips heaume is wrong. sent7: the fact that the guitar is a kind of a Bohemian that nips heaume is not true. sent8: the fact that the guitar is incompressible and it is dispensable is incorrect. sent9: if that the anesthesiologist is qualitative and it is amoristic does not hold it is not a Prussian. sent10: the sluicegate does not nip heaume. sent11: the guitar is not incompressible if it does not nip heaume. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the guitar is a OPV that nips heaume is false then it is not incompressible.

if that the guitar is a OPV that nips heaume is false then it is not incompressible.

the fact that the guitar is a kind of a OPV and it nips heaume is wrong.

the continent is a hydrosphere and does crab kaph.

sent1: the fact that the ununbium is a hydrosphere and it is far is not right. sent2: if the continent is not far that the ununbium is a hydrosphere and does crab kaph is not right. sent3: the fact that the ununbium is a kind of a pravastatin that is a kind of a bitterwood does not hold. sent4: if the ununbium is not far the fact that the continent is a hydrosphere and crabs kaph is not correct. sent5: the ununbium is not far. sent6: the fact that the ununbium is a kind of far thing that is a kind of a hydrosphere does not hold if the continent does not crab kaph. sent7: the ununbium is not a hydrosphere. sent8: the fact that the cloakroom is sadistic and does heat is wrong. sent9: the fact that the ununbium does not crab kaph is correct.

({AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ¬({B}{a} & {EM}{a}) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: ¬{AA}{a} sent8: ¬({CJ}{fj} & {U}{fj}) sent9: ¬{AB}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the continent is a hydrosphere and does crab kaph. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the ununbium is a hydrosphere and it is far is not right. sent2: if the continent is not far that the ununbium is a hydrosphere and does crab kaph is not right. sent3: the fact that the ununbium is a kind of a pravastatin that is a kind of a bitterwood does not hold. sent4: if the ununbium is not far the fact that the continent is a hydrosphere and crabs kaph is not correct. sent5: the ununbium is not far. sent6: the fact that the ununbium is a kind of far thing that is a kind of a hydrosphere does not hold if the continent does not crab kaph. sent7: the ununbium is not a hydrosphere. sent8: the fact that the cloakroom is sadistic and does heat is wrong. sent9: the fact that the ununbium does not crab kaph is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the ununbium is not far the fact that the continent is a hydrosphere and crabs kaph is not correct.

if the ununbium is not far the fact that the continent is a hydrosphere and crabs kaph is not correct.

the ununbium is not far.

the propagandistness happens and the segue does not occur.

sent1: that the propagandistness but not the seguing happens is wrong if the allogeneicness occurs. sent2: the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs. sent3: if the fundamentalist happens then the fact that the blocking does not occur and the segue does not occur is not right. sent4: the reacting occurs. sent5: that the allogeneicness happens is prevented by that the propagandist does not occur.

({C} & ¬{D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hunt occurs.

{GI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the propagandistness happens and the segue does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the propagandistness but not the seguing happens is wrong if the allogeneicness occurs. sent2: the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs. sent3: if the fundamentalist happens then the fact that the blocking does not occur and the segue does not occur is not right. sent4: the reacting occurs. sent5: that the allogeneicness happens is prevented by that the propagandist does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the allogeneicness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs.

If the reacting occurs, the allogeneicness will happen.

the reacting occurs.

the propagandistness happens and the segue does not occur.

sent1: that the propagandistness but not the seguing happens is wrong if the allogeneicness occurs. sent2: the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs. sent3: if the fundamentalist happens then the fact that the blocking does not occur and the segue does not occur is not right. sent4: the reacting occurs. sent5: that the allogeneicness happens is prevented by that the propagandist does not occur.

({C} & ¬{D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the hunt occurs.

{GI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the propagandistness happens and the segue does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the propagandistness but not the seguing happens is wrong if the allogeneicness occurs. sent2: the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs. sent3: if the fundamentalist happens then the fact that the blocking does not occur and the segue does not occur is not right. sent4: the reacting occurs. sent5: that the allogeneicness happens is prevented by that the propagandist does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the allogeneicness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the allogeneicness happens if the reacting occurs.

If the reacting occurs, the allogeneicness happens.

that the propagandistness but not the seguing happens is wrong if the allogeneicness occurs.

the bittercress is a kind of viviparous thing that does scour.

sent1: the duct is entozoic if the milldam is a kind of a brickwork. sent2: that the telescope is a sacrificer and leaning does not hold if it is not a temporal. sent3: that something is not a kind of a stammerer and is not a brickwork is incorrect if it is not a Nilsson. sent4: the bittercress is non-fugal. sent5: something is a brickwork if the fact that it is not a kind of a stammerer and it is not a brickwork is not right. sent6: if that the Moloch is a kind of an encounter and/or it does not filiate aeschynanthus does not hold the bittercress is non-urceolate. sent7: the fact that the bittercress is not urceolate is right. sent8: the bittercress is not urceolate and it does not filiate aeschynanthus. sent9: that something is both viviparous and a scours is incorrect if it does not filiate aeschynanthus. sent10: the institution is non-attachable and non-urceolate. sent11: if that the fact that the cigar does nip twilight and it is a Nilsson hold is wrong then the milldam is not a Nilsson. sent12: the bittercress is not a epigastrium. sent13: that the Moloch does encounter or it does not filiate aeschynanthus or both is false if the duct is entozoic. sent14: the evacuee is not a kind of an impact.

({D}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: {G}{d} -> {F}{c} sent2: ¬{AH}{m} -> ¬({EJ}{m} & {HS}{m}) sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: ¬{DH}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{G}x) -> {G}x sent6: ¬({E}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent10: (¬{FM}{fk} & ¬{A}{fk}) sent11: ¬({K}{e} & {H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent12: ¬{GD}{a} sent13: {F}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent14: ¬{J}{f}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bittercress is viviparous thing that is a scours.

({D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bittercress is a kind of viviparous thing that does scour. ; $context$ = sent1: the duct is entozoic if the milldam is a kind of a brickwork. sent2: that the telescope is a sacrificer and leaning does not hold if it is not a temporal. sent3: that something is not a kind of a stammerer and is not a brickwork is incorrect if it is not a Nilsson. sent4: the bittercress is non-fugal. sent5: something is a brickwork if the fact that it is not a kind of a stammerer and it is not a brickwork is not right. sent6: if that the Moloch is a kind of an encounter and/or it does not filiate aeschynanthus does not hold the bittercress is non-urceolate. sent7: the fact that the bittercress is not urceolate is right. sent8: the bittercress is not urceolate and it does not filiate aeschynanthus. sent9: that something is both viviparous and a scours is incorrect if it does not filiate aeschynanthus. sent10: the institution is non-attachable and non-urceolate. sent11: if that the fact that the cigar does nip twilight and it is a Nilsson hold is wrong then the milldam is not a Nilsson. sent12: the bittercress is not a epigastrium. sent13: that the Moloch does encounter or it does not filiate aeschynanthus or both is false if the duct is entozoic. sent14: the evacuee is not a kind of an impact. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the bittercress does not filiate aeschynanthus.; sent9 -> int2: that the bittercress is viviparous and is a scours is not right if it does not filiate aeschynanthus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bittercress is not urceolate and it does not filiate aeschynanthus.

the bittercress is not urceolate and it does not filiate aeschynanthus.

that something is both viviparous and a scours is incorrect if it does not filiate aeschynanthus.

the fact that the cyborg is not inexpedient and it is not a deaf-mutism is correct.

sent1: if the fiefdom is part-time and it is a kind of an oral the fact that it does not scissor hold. sent2: if the fiefdom does not scissor then the fact that the cyborg is not a kind of a deaf-mutism is right. sent3: the fiefdom clarions. sent4: that the fiefdom nips dynamics is right. sent5: That the dynamics nips fiefdom is right. sent6: if the cyborg nips dynamics and does scissor then it is not a deaf-mutism. sent7: if the fiefdom does not scissor then the cyborg is expedient thing that is not a deaf-mutism. sent8: the fiefdom is part-time.

(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cyborg is not inexpedient and it is not a deaf-mutism is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fiefdom is part-time and it is a kind of an oral the fact that it does not scissor hold. sent2: if the fiefdom does not scissor then the fact that the cyborg is not a kind of a deaf-mutism is right. sent3: the fiefdom clarions. sent4: that the fiefdom nips dynamics is right. sent5: That the dynamics nips fiefdom is right. sent6: if the cyborg nips dynamics and does scissor then it is not a deaf-mutism. sent7: if the fiefdom does not scissor then the cyborg is expedient thing that is not a deaf-mutism. sent8: the fiefdom is part-time. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the cyborg nips dynamics and does scissor then it is not a deaf-mutism.

if the cyborg nips dynamics and does scissor then it is not a deaf-mutism.

that the fiefdom nips dynamics is right.

the decorator does not scale QCD and is a kind of a sheepherder.

sent1: if something is cherty and it scales examen then it does not filiate reflection. sent2: that the crotch is not cherty but seasonable is not right. sent3: that something is non-metric and it is a crassness is wrong if it does filiate reflection. sent4: if the decipherer does not scale crotch then that it is useful and it is a kind of a isometrics is not true. sent5: something is not homiletics but it is cherty if it is not a kind of a isometrics. sent6: the decorator is not a crassness but a sheepherder. sent7: the fact that the syncopator does not scale QCD and filiates sandbar is false. sent8: the tanka is incontestable. sent9: that the tanka does filiate reflection and it scales forty-niner does not hold. sent10: the fact that the tanka is non-metric and a crassness is not right if it filiates reflection. sent11: if that the decorator does filiate reflection hold the fact that it is not a kind of a crassness and it scales QCD is not right. sent12: the decorator is a sheepherder if the tanka is cherty. sent13: the fact that if the decorator is the sheepherder then the fact that the decorator does not filiate reflection and is non-metric is not correct hold. sent14: that the decorator does not scale QCD but it is a sheepherder is wrong if the swearer does not filiate reflection. sent15: that something is not non-metric but it is a crassness is false if the fact that it does filiate reflection is not false. sent16: if the decipherer is both not homiletics and cherty the swearer is cherty. sent17: the fact that the tanka filiates reflection is not incorrect. sent18: the decorator scales QCD if that it is both not non-metric and not non-cherty does not hold. sent19: that the tanka is not non-metric but it is a sheepherder is right. sent20: the tanka does scale QCD. sent21: The fact that the reflection filiates tanka is not incorrect. sent22: something is not a isometrics if the fact that it is useful and it is isometrics does not hold. sent23: the decorator does not scale QCD but it is a kind of a sheepherder if the tanka is cherty. sent24: the tanka is a kind of non-cherty a sheepherder if the decorator is non-metric.

(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: (x): ({B}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent2: ¬(¬{B}{u} & {GO}{u}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({I}{c} & {F}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{G}x & {B}x) sent6: (¬{AB}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: ¬(¬{C}{e} & {GT}{e}) sent8: {HO}{aa} sent9: ¬({A}{aa} & {IQ}{aa}) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: {B}{aa} -> {D}{a} sent13: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (¬{G}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent17: {A}{aa} sent18: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent19: (¬{AA}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent20: {C}{aa} sent21: {AC}{ab} sent22: (x): ¬({I}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent23: {B}{aa} -> (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent24: {AA}{a} -> (¬{B}{aa} & {D}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the decorator does not scale QCD but it is a sheepherder is not true.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the decorator does not scale QCD and is a kind of a sheepherder. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is cherty and it scales examen then it does not filiate reflection. sent2: that the crotch is not cherty but seasonable is not right. sent3: that something is non-metric and it is a crassness is wrong if it does filiate reflection. sent4: if the decipherer does not scale crotch then that it is useful and it is a kind of a isometrics is not true. sent5: something is not homiletics but it is cherty if it is not a kind of a isometrics. sent6: the decorator is not a crassness but a sheepherder. sent7: the fact that the syncopator does not scale QCD and filiates sandbar is false. sent8: the tanka is incontestable. sent9: that the tanka does filiate reflection and it scales forty-niner does not hold. sent10: the fact that the tanka is non-metric and a crassness is not right if it filiates reflection. sent11: if that the decorator does filiate reflection hold the fact that it is not a kind of a crassness and it scales QCD is not right. sent12: the decorator is a sheepherder if the tanka is cherty. sent13: the fact that if the decorator is the sheepherder then the fact that the decorator does not filiate reflection and is non-metric is not correct hold. sent14: that the decorator does not scale QCD but it is a sheepherder is wrong if the swearer does not filiate reflection. sent15: that something is not non-metric but it is a crassness is false if the fact that it does filiate reflection is not false. sent16: if the decipherer is both not homiletics and cherty the swearer is cherty. sent17: the fact that the tanka filiates reflection is not incorrect. sent18: the decorator scales QCD if that it is both not non-metric and not non-cherty does not hold. sent19: that the tanka is not non-metric but it is a sheepherder is right. sent20: the tanka does scale QCD. sent21: The fact that the reflection filiates tanka is not incorrect. sent22: something is not a isometrics if the fact that it is useful and it is isometrics does not hold. sent23: the decorator does not scale QCD but it is a kind of a sheepherder if the tanka is cherty. sent24: the tanka is a kind of non-cherty a sheepherder if the decorator is non-metric. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that something is not non-metric but it is a crassness is false if the fact that it does filiate reflection is not false.

that something is not non-metric but it is a crassness is false if the fact that it does filiate reflection is not false.

the fact that the tanka filiates reflection is not incorrect.

the fact that the cupcake is non-unidimensional thing that does not filiate gibibit does not hold.

sent1: something does nip Arab and does not filiate gibibit if it does not scale clothesline. sent2: if that the fingernail is not a kind of a warrant but it does wet does not hold then the cupcake does not nip Arab. sent3: the fact that the cupcake does not filiate gibibit and it is not wetting is wrong. sent4: the fact that the cupcake is not unidimensional and filiates gibibit is not correct. sent5: that the cupcake does not nip Arab hold if the fingernail is a warrant. sent6: if the votary mines then that the fingernail mines is not wrong. sent7: that the fingernail is both not unidimensional and wetting is incorrect. sent8: if something is unidimensional that it is toned and is a executability is not correct. sent9: the fact that the cupcake nips Arab and does not filiate gibibit is false if it is not wetting. sent10: the fact that something does nip Arab and it scales clothesline is false if it is not a mined. sent11: the votary is a mined. sent12: if that the fingernail does nip Arab and it scales clothesline is not correct then it does not nip Arab. sent13: that the cupcake is unidimensional and does not filiate gibibit does not hold. sent14: the fingernail scales cornhusking if that it does not scales cornhusking and is a cross-classification is wrong. sent15: if the cupcake does not nip Arab then that it is non-unidimensional thing that does filiate gibibit does not hold. sent16: if the fingernail is not wetting then that that it does not filiate gibibit and does not nip Arab is true is wrong. sent17: that the fingernail is a warrant and it wets is incorrect. sent18: the fingernail is not unidimensional if the cupcake is not a warrant. sent19: if a mined scales cornhusking it does not scale clothesline. sent20: that the fingernail is not a warrant but wetting is not correct. sent21: that the fingernail does not filiate gibibit if the cupcake is not wetting hold.

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the cupcake is not toneless but a executability is wrong.

¬(¬{IE}{b} & {BN}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cupcake is non-unidimensional thing that does not filiate gibibit does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does nip Arab and does not filiate gibibit if it does not scale clothesline. sent2: if that the fingernail is not a kind of a warrant but it does wet does not hold then the cupcake does not nip Arab. sent3: the fact that the cupcake does not filiate gibibit and it is not wetting is wrong. sent4: the fact that the cupcake is not unidimensional and filiates gibibit is not correct. sent5: that the cupcake does not nip Arab hold if the fingernail is a warrant. sent6: if the votary mines then that the fingernail mines is not wrong. sent7: that the fingernail is both not unidimensional and wetting is incorrect. sent8: if something is unidimensional that it is toned and is a executability is not correct. sent9: the fact that the cupcake nips Arab and does not filiate gibibit is false if it is not wetting. sent10: the fact that something does nip Arab and it scales clothesline is false if it is not a mined. sent11: the votary is a mined. sent12: if that the fingernail does nip Arab and it scales clothesline is not correct then it does not nip Arab. sent13: that the cupcake is unidimensional and does not filiate gibibit does not hold. sent14: the fingernail scales cornhusking if that it does not scales cornhusking and is a cross-classification is wrong. sent15: if the cupcake does not nip Arab then that it is non-unidimensional thing that does filiate gibibit does not hold. sent16: if the fingernail is not wetting then that that it does not filiate gibibit and does not nip Arab is true is wrong. sent17: that the fingernail is a warrant and it wets is incorrect. sent18: the fingernail is not unidimensional if the cupcake is not a warrant. sent19: if a mined scales cornhusking it does not scale clothesline. sent20: that the fingernail is not a warrant but wetting is not correct. sent21: that the fingernail does not filiate gibibit if the cupcake is not wetting hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the fingernail is not a kind of a warrant but it does wet does not hold then the cupcake does not nip Arab.

if that the fingernail is not a kind of a warrant but it does wet does not hold then the cupcake does not nip Arab.

that the fingernail is not a warrant but wetting is not correct.

the serine is not algometric.

sent1: the fact that something is both a Zurvanism and not non-algometric is right if it is not a kind of a clunch. sent2: if something is not calyceal that it is not Tibetan but a honk is not true. sent3: the serine is a Zurvanism if something is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent4: if a clunch is a kind of a Zurvanism it is not algometric. sent5: the baguet is unwomanly. sent6: something is a taxation if it is a Zurvanism. sent7: the archil is algometric. sent8: if the matchlock scales nogging but it does not scale Marchantia the frontierswoman is not natural. sent9: the matchlock is political if the hearthstone crabs oration. sent10: the serine is not a clunch if the archil filiates Zola. sent11: the serine does filiate evolutionism. sent12: if that the fact that the vermifuge is non-Tibetan a honk is not false is not right the Congolese does honk. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unwomanly is right the nepotist is not a kind of a elecampane but it is not non-aponeurotic. sent14: there exists something such that it is not an exit. sent15: the fact that the bolometer is not a Zurvanism hold. sent16: if the Congolese is a honk that the archil does filiate Zola is true. sent17: if something is algometric the cardinalfish is a postponement and a clunch. sent18: if that something is loyal and it is calyceal is wrong it is not calyceal. sent19: if the frontierswoman is not a natural then that the vermifuge is a kind of loyal thing that is calyceal does not hold. sent20: the napery is not a loonie if something that is not a elecampane is aponeurotic. sent21: the serine is not a exudation. sent22: there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent23: if something is political it does scale nogging and it does not scale Marchantia.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): ({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: {Q}{j} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {GS}x sent7: {C}{b} sent8: ({K}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent9: {M}{g} -> {L}{f} sent10: {D}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: {FE}{a} sent12: ¬(¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent13: (x): {Q}x -> (¬{P}{i} & {O}{i}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent15: ¬{A}{ib} sent16: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent17: (x): {C}x -> ({DQ}{eu} & {B}{eu}) sent18: (x): ¬({I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({I}{d} & {G}{d}) sent20: (x): (¬{P}x & {O}x) -> ¬{N}{h} sent21: ¬{AA}{a} sent22: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent23: (x): {L}x -> ({K}x & ¬{J}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cardinalfish is a postponement and it is a kind of a taxation.

({DQ}{eu} & {GS}{eu})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the serine is not algometric. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is both a Zurvanism and not non-algometric is right if it is not a kind of a clunch. sent2: if something is not calyceal that it is not Tibetan but a honk is not true. sent3: the serine is a Zurvanism if something is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent4: if a clunch is a kind of a Zurvanism it is not algometric. sent5: the baguet is unwomanly. sent6: something is a taxation if it is a Zurvanism. sent7: the archil is algometric. sent8: if the matchlock scales nogging but it does not scale Marchantia the frontierswoman is not natural. sent9: the matchlock is political if the hearthstone crabs oration. sent10: the serine is not a clunch if the archil filiates Zola. sent11: the serine does filiate evolutionism. sent12: if that the fact that the vermifuge is non-Tibetan a honk is not false is not right the Congolese does honk. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unwomanly is right the nepotist is not a kind of a elecampane but it is not non-aponeurotic. sent14: there exists something such that it is not an exit. sent15: the fact that the bolometer is not a Zurvanism hold. sent16: if the Congolese is a honk that the archil does filiate Zola is true. sent17: if something is algometric the cardinalfish is a postponement and a clunch. sent18: if that something is loyal and it is calyceal is wrong it is not calyceal. sent19: if the frontierswoman is not a natural then that the vermifuge is a kind of loyal thing that is calyceal does not hold. sent20: the napery is not a loonie if something that is not a elecampane is aponeurotic. sent21: the serine is not a exudation. sent22: there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent23: if something is political it does scale nogging and it does not scale Marchantia. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit.

It is not an exit and it is not an exudation.

the serine is a Zurvanism if something is not a exudation and it is not an exit.

the serine is not algometric.

sent1: the fact that something is both a Zurvanism and not non-algometric is right if it is not a kind of a clunch. sent2: if something is not calyceal that it is not Tibetan but a honk is not true. sent3: the serine is a Zurvanism if something is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent4: if a clunch is a kind of a Zurvanism it is not algometric. sent5: the baguet is unwomanly. sent6: something is a taxation if it is a Zurvanism. sent7: the archil is algometric. sent8: if the matchlock scales nogging but it does not scale Marchantia the frontierswoman is not natural. sent9: the matchlock is political if the hearthstone crabs oration. sent10: the serine is not a clunch if the archil filiates Zola. sent11: the serine does filiate evolutionism. sent12: if that the fact that the vermifuge is non-Tibetan a honk is not false is not right the Congolese does honk. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unwomanly is right the nepotist is not a kind of a elecampane but it is not non-aponeurotic. sent14: there exists something such that it is not an exit. sent15: the fact that the bolometer is not a Zurvanism hold. sent16: if the Congolese is a honk that the archil does filiate Zola is true. sent17: if something is algometric the cardinalfish is a postponement and a clunch. sent18: if that something is loyal and it is calyceal is wrong it is not calyceal. sent19: if the frontierswoman is not a natural then that the vermifuge is a kind of loyal thing that is calyceal does not hold. sent20: the napery is not a loonie if something that is not a elecampane is aponeurotic. sent21: the serine is not a exudation. sent22: there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent23: if something is political it does scale nogging and it does not scale Marchantia.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): ({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: {Q}{j} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {GS}x sent7: {C}{b} sent8: ({K}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent9: {M}{g} -> {L}{f} sent10: {D}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: {FE}{a} sent12: ¬(¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent13: (x): {Q}x -> (¬{P}{i} & {O}{i}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent15: ¬{A}{ib} sent16: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent17: (x): {C}x -> ({DQ}{eu} & {B}{eu}) sent18: (x): ¬({I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({I}{d} & {G}{d}) sent20: (x): (¬{P}x & {O}x) -> ¬{N}{h} sent21: ¬{AA}{a} sent22: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent23: (x): {L}x -> ({K}x & ¬{J}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cardinalfish is a postponement and it is a kind of a taxation.

({DQ}{eu} & {GS}{eu})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the serine is not algometric. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is both a Zurvanism and not non-algometric is right if it is not a kind of a clunch. sent2: if something is not calyceal that it is not Tibetan but a honk is not true. sent3: the serine is a Zurvanism if something is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent4: if a clunch is a kind of a Zurvanism it is not algometric. sent5: the baguet is unwomanly. sent6: something is a taxation if it is a Zurvanism. sent7: the archil is algometric. sent8: if the matchlock scales nogging but it does not scale Marchantia the frontierswoman is not natural. sent9: the matchlock is political if the hearthstone crabs oration. sent10: the serine is not a clunch if the archil filiates Zola. sent11: the serine does filiate evolutionism. sent12: if that the fact that the vermifuge is non-Tibetan a honk is not false is not right the Congolese does honk. sent13: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unwomanly is right the nepotist is not a kind of a elecampane but it is not non-aponeurotic. sent14: there exists something such that it is not an exit. sent15: the fact that the bolometer is not a Zurvanism hold. sent16: if the Congolese is a honk that the archil does filiate Zola is true. sent17: if something is algometric the cardinalfish is a postponement and a clunch. sent18: if that something is loyal and it is calyceal is wrong it is not calyceal. sent19: if the frontierswoman is not a natural then that the vermifuge is a kind of loyal thing that is calyceal does not hold. sent20: the napery is not a loonie if something that is not a elecampane is aponeurotic. sent21: the serine is not a exudation. sent22: there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit. sent23: if something is political it does scale nogging and it does not scale Marchantia. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a exudation and it is not an exit.

It isn't an exit and it isn't an exudation.

if a clunch is a kind of a Zurvanism it is not algometric.

the agrypnoticness occurs.

sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the agrypnoticness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the agrypnoticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the uptick happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the epithelialness does not occur.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs.

The megillah occurs 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs.

the agrypnoticness occurs.

sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the agrypnoticness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the agrypnoticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the uptick happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the epithelialness does not occur.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs.

The megillah occurs at 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong.

the agrypnoticness occurs.

sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the agrypnoticness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the agrypnoticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-agrypnoticness and the non-epithelialness occurs is incorrect if the uptick does not occur. sent2: if that the agrypnoticness does not occur and the epithelialness does not occur is incorrect the agrypnoticness occurs. sent3: that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent4: that the scaling tonsil does not occur results in that both the election and the off-streetness occurs. sent5: the fact that the epithelialness does not occur hold if that the uptick occurs is not wrong. sent6: not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs. sent7: that the uptick does not occur and the inaudibleness does not occur is triggered by that the election occurs. sent8: if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the uptick happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the epithelialness does not occur.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the uptick happens is caused by that not the nipping embryo but the megillah occurs.

The megillah occurs 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

if the epithelialness does not occur then the agrypnoticness does not occur.

the accompaniment quirks.

sent1: the athenaeum is not a quirk if something is non-likable thing that is not a prefab. sent2: the accompaniment is not a quirk if something that is a prefab is not likable. sent3: the athenaeum is not a prefab and is not likable. sent4: the accompaniment does not quirk if there is something such that it is not a kind of a prefab and is non-likable.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the accompaniment quirks. ; $context$ = sent1: the athenaeum is not a quirk if something is non-likable thing that is not a prefab. sent2: the accompaniment is not a quirk if something that is a prefab is not likable. sent3: the athenaeum is not a prefab and is not likable. sent4: the accompaniment does not quirk if there is something such that it is not a kind of a prefab and is non-likable. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: something is not a kind of a prefab and it is not likable.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the athenaeum is not a prefab and is not likable.

the athenaeum is not a prefab and is not likable.

the accompaniment does not quirk if there is something such that it is not a kind of a prefab and is non-likable.

the encaustic is a Hindustani.

sent1: the adesite does not lengthen. sent2: if the encaustic is a kind of a Hindustani then the adesite lengthens. sent3: the elements is a kind of a Hindustani. sent4: that something is Hindustani is true if it does lengthen.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{B}{b} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: {A}{dd} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the encaustic is a Hindustani.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the encaustic is a Hindustani. ; $context$ = sent1: the adesite does not lengthen. sent2: if the encaustic is a kind of a Hindustani then the adesite lengthens. sent3: the elements is a kind of a Hindustani. sent4: that something is Hindustani is true if it does lengthen. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the encaustic is a Hindustani is not wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the adesite lengthens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the encaustic is a kind of a Hindustani then the adesite lengthens.

if the encaustic is a kind of a Hindustani then the adesite lengthens.

the adesite does not lengthen.

the briber is a heartbreaker.

sent1: if there exists something such that it nips hypocrisy that the briber is a conciliation and/or is not a heartbreaker is incorrect. sent2: that the musculature nips Stromateidae is right if the harmonium does nips Stromateidae. sent3: the briber is not a kind of a heartbreaker if the fact that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both is false. sent4: there exists nothing such that it is non-multilingual and/or it scales Cotacachi. sent5: if that either the harmonium is not multilingual or it does scale Cotacachi or both is false then it is not skinless. sent6: the outlier is a conciliation if something is micropylar. sent7: if that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is a conciliation or both is not correct then the briber is not a heartbreaker. sent8: if something is not skinless it does nip Stromateidae and does scale spinelessness. sent9: there are micropylar things. sent10: the fact that the carbonyl is a kind of a heartbreaker that is a conciliation does not hold if the schorl does not scale dynamics. sent11: the carbonyl scales dynamics if the schorl does conspire. sent12: if that something nips Stromateidae but it does not conspire is not right it does not scale dynamics. sent13: if something scales dynamics it is a conciliation. sent14: the schorl does conspire if the farce nips Stromateidae. sent15: if the fist is not micropylar and does not nip hypocrisy then the outlier is a heartbreaker. sent16: if the musculature does nip Stromateidae the farce nip Stromateidae. sent17: the outlier is a conciliation. sent18: if the fist nips hypocrisy then the outlier is micropylar. sent19: if something is micropylar then the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both does not hold. sent20: if the outlier is a heartbreaker the briber is a heartbreaker. sent21: either the fist scales dynamics or it is starchless or both if there exists something such that it scales dynamics. sent22: the fact that the briber is starchless and/or it is not a lygaeid is false if that the outlier is micropylar hold.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the briber is starchless or is not a lygaeid or both is false.

¬({E}{b} v ¬{EJ}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the briber is a heartbreaker. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it nips hypocrisy that the briber is a conciliation and/or is not a heartbreaker is incorrect. sent2: that the musculature nips Stromateidae is right if the harmonium does nips Stromateidae. sent3: the briber is not a kind of a heartbreaker if the fact that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both is false. sent4: there exists nothing such that it is non-multilingual and/or it scales Cotacachi. sent5: if that either the harmonium is not multilingual or it does scale Cotacachi or both is false then it is not skinless. sent6: the outlier is a conciliation if something is micropylar. sent7: if that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is a conciliation or both is not correct then the briber is not a heartbreaker. sent8: if something is not skinless it does nip Stromateidae and does scale spinelessness. sent9: there are micropylar things. sent10: the fact that the carbonyl is a kind of a heartbreaker that is a conciliation does not hold if the schorl does not scale dynamics. sent11: the carbonyl scales dynamics if the schorl does conspire. sent12: if that something nips Stromateidae but it does not conspire is not right it does not scale dynamics. sent13: if something scales dynamics it is a conciliation. sent14: the schorl does conspire if the farce nips Stromateidae. sent15: if the fist is not micropylar and does not nip hypocrisy then the outlier is a heartbreaker. sent16: if the musculature does nip Stromateidae the farce nip Stromateidae. sent17: the outlier is a conciliation. sent18: if the fist nips hypocrisy then the outlier is micropylar. sent19: if something is micropylar then the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both does not hold. sent20: if the outlier is a heartbreaker the briber is a heartbreaker. sent21: either the fist scales dynamics or it is starchless or both if there exists something such that it scales dynamics. sent22: the fact that the briber is starchless and/or it is not a lygaeid is false if that the outlier is micropylar hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or is not a conciliation or both is false.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there are micropylar things.

There are things that are small.

if something is micropylar then the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both does not hold.

the briber is a heartbreaker.

sent1: if there exists something such that it nips hypocrisy that the briber is a conciliation and/or is not a heartbreaker is incorrect. sent2: that the musculature nips Stromateidae is right if the harmonium does nips Stromateidae. sent3: the briber is not a kind of a heartbreaker if the fact that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both is false. sent4: there exists nothing such that it is non-multilingual and/or it scales Cotacachi. sent5: if that either the harmonium is not multilingual or it does scale Cotacachi or both is false then it is not skinless. sent6: the outlier is a conciliation if something is micropylar. sent7: if that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is a conciliation or both is not correct then the briber is not a heartbreaker. sent8: if something is not skinless it does nip Stromateidae and does scale spinelessness. sent9: there are micropylar things. sent10: the fact that the carbonyl is a kind of a heartbreaker that is a conciliation does not hold if the schorl does not scale dynamics. sent11: the carbonyl scales dynamics if the schorl does conspire. sent12: if that something nips Stromateidae but it does not conspire is not right it does not scale dynamics. sent13: if something scales dynamics it is a conciliation. sent14: the schorl does conspire if the farce nips Stromateidae. sent15: if the fist is not micropylar and does not nip hypocrisy then the outlier is a heartbreaker. sent16: if the musculature does nip Stromateidae the farce nip Stromateidae. sent17: the outlier is a conciliation. sent18: if the fist nips hypocrisy then the outlier is micropylar. sent19: if something is micropylar then the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both does not hold. sent20: if the outlier is a heartbreaker the briber is a heartbreaker. sent21: either the fist scales dynamics or it is starchless or both if there exists something such that it scales dynamics. sent22: the fact that the briber is starchless and/or it is not a lygaeid is false if that the outlier is micropylar hold.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the briber is starchless or is not a lygaeid or both is false.

¬({E}{b} v ¬{EJ}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the briber is a heartbreaker. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it nips hypocrisy that the briber is a conciliation and/or is not a heartbreaker is incorrect. sent2: that the musculature nips Stromateidae is right if the harmonium does nips Stromateidae. sent3: the briber is not a kind of a heartbreaker if the fact that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both is false. sent4: there exists nothing such that it is non-multilingual and/or it scales Cotacachi. sent5: if that either the harmonium is not multilingual or it does scale Cotacachi or both is false then it is not skinless. sent6: the outlier is a conciliation if something is micropylar. sent7: if that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is a conciliation or both is not correct then the briber is not a heartbreaker. sent8: if something is not skinless it does nip Stromateidae and does scale spinelessness. sent9: there are micropylar things. sent10: the fact that the carbonyl is a kind of a heartbreaker that is a conciliation does not hold if the schorl does not scale dynamics. sent11: the carbonyl scales dynamics if the schorl does conspire. sent12: if that something nips Stromateidae but it does not conspire is not right it does not scale dynamics. sent13: if something scales dynamics it is a conciliation. sent14: the schorl does conspire if the farce nips Stromateidae. sent15: if the fist is not micropylar and does not nip hypocrisy then the outlier is a heartbreaker. sent16: if the musculature does nip Stromateidae the farce nip Stromateidae. sent17: the outlier is a conciliation. sent18: if the fist nips hypocrisy then the outlier is micropylar. sent19: if something is micropylar then the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both does not hold. sent20: if the outlier is a heartbreaker the briber is a heartbreaker. sent21: either the fist scales dynamics or it is starchless or both if there exists something such that it scales dynamics. sent22: the fact that the briber is starchless and/or it is not a lygaeid is false if that the outlier is micropylar hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the outlier nips hypocrisy or is not a conciliation or both is false.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there are micropylar things.

There are small things.

the briber is not a kind of a heartbreaker if the fact that either the outlier nips hypocrisy or it is not a conciliation or both is false.

the Lascar is not a kind of a Larousse.

sent1: if the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive and nips Ondaatje is not correct the Lascar is not a Larousse. sent2: the viper is not a millwright. sent3: the Lascar is a Larousse and it is a kind of a millwright if the outsole is not a sized. sent4: the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus. sent5: the outsole is not a millwright. sent6: a millwright is a kind of a Larousse. sent7: the Lascar is not a Larousse if the viper does not nip Ondaatje. sent8: the fact that the milcher nips Ondaatje and is a sweeper does not hold. sent9: if the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus then that the viper is not a Montana and is canonic is false. sent10: that the viper is orchestral and it is a sized does not hold if the xanthomonad is non-bibliotics. sent11: if the outsole is not bibliotics the Lascar is a sized and it is orchestral. sent12: if something does filiate Gerbillus that it is both not a Montana and not non-canonic does not hold. sent13: the distillery does filiate Gerbillus. sent14: the fact that the outsole is both not nonrepetitive and a millwright is false. sent15: that the viper is not a Larousse but it nips Ondaatje does not hold if the fact that the Lascar is not nonrepetitive is not wrong. sent16: if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Lascar is a Larousse.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Lascar is not a kind of a Larousse. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive and nips Ondaatje is not correct the Lascar is not a Larousse. sent2: the viper is not a millwright. sent3: the Lascar is a Larousse and it is a kind of a millwright if the outsole is not a sized. sent4: the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus. sent5: the outsole is not a millwright. sent6: a millwright is a kind of a Larousse. sent7: the Lascar is not a Larousse if the viper does not nip Ondaatje. sent8: the fact that the milcher nips Ondaatje and is a sweeper does not hold. sent9: if the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus then that the viper is not a Montana and is canonic is false. sent10: that the viper is orchestral and it is a sized does not hold if the xanthomonad is non-bibliotics. sent11: if the outsole is not bibliotics the Lascar is a sized and it is orchestral. sent12: if something does filiate Gerbillus that it is both not a Montana and not non-canonic does not hold. sent13: the distillery does filiate Gerbillus. sent14: the fact that the outsole is both not nonrepetitive and a millwright is false. sent15: that the viper is not a Larousse but it nips Ondaatje does not hold if the fact that the Lascar is not nonrepetitive is not wrong. sent16: if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent5 -> int1: that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold.

The fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but nips Ondaatje does not hold.

the outsole is not a millwright.

the Lascar is not a kind of a Larousse.

sent1: if the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive and nips Ondaatje is not correct the Lascar is not a Larousse. sent2: the viper is not a millwright. sent3: the Lascar is a Larousse and it is a kind of a millwright if the outsole is not a sized. sent4: the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus. sent5: the outsole is not a millwright. sent6: a millwright is a kind of a Larousse. sent7: the Lascar is not a Larousse if the viper does not nip Ondaatje. sent8: the fact that the milcher nips Ondaatje and is a sweeper does not hold. sent9: if the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus then that the viper is not a Montana and is canonic is false. sent10: that the viper is orchestral and it is a sized does not hold if the xanthomonad is non-bibliotics. sent11: if the outsole is not bibliotics the Lascar is a sized and it is orchestral. sent12: if something does filiate Gerbillus that it is both not a Montana and not non-canonic does not hold. sent13: the distillery does filiate Gerbillus. sent14: the fact that the outsole is both not nonrepetitive and a millwright is false. sent15: that the viper is not a Larousse but it nips Ondaatje does not hold if the fact that the Lascar is not nonrepetitive is not wrong. sent16: if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Lascar is a Larousse.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Lascar is not a kind of a Larousse. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive and nips Ondaatje is not correct the Lascar is not a Larousse. sent2: the viper is not a millwright. sent3: the Lascar is a Larousse and it is a kind of a millwright if the outsole is not a sized. sent4: the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus. sent5: the outsole is not a millwright. sent6: a millwright is a kind of a Larousse. sent7: the Lascar is not a Larousse if the viper does not nip Ondaatje. sent8: the fact that the milcher nips Ondaatje and is a sweeper does not hold. sent9: if the xanthomonad does filiate Gerbillus then that the viper is not a Montana and is canonic is false. sent10: that the viper is orchestral and it is a sized does not hold if the xanthomonad is non-bibliotics. sent11: if the outsole is not bibliotics the Lascar is a sized and it is orchestral. sent12: if something does filiate Gerbillus that it is both not a Montana and not non-canonic does not hold. sent13: the distillery does filiate Gerbillus. sent14: the fact that the outsole is both not nonrepetitive and a millwright is false. sent15: that the viper is not a Larousse but it nips Ondaatje does not hold if the fact that the Lascar is not nonrepetitive is not wrong. sent16: if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent5 -> int1: that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the outsole is not a kind of a millwright the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold.

The fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive but it nips Ondaatje does not hold.

if the fact that the viper is not nonrepetitive and nips Ondaatje is not correct the Lascar is not a Larousse.

the organza is a kind of allophonic thing that does filiate tattler.

sent1: if the microeconomist is not a slant that the guesser does filiate self-knowledge but it is not a treat is incorrect. sent2: the desperate is not a kind of a self-starter if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a self-starter and does not filiate specialization is not false is wrong. sent3: if the fomite is allophonic thing that is a kind of a ravigote the T-bar is not allophonic. sent4: the organza filiates tattler. sent5: if something is hemodynamics and/or it is not admissible then it is not a slant. sent6: the chick is not totipotent. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a self-starter the microeconomist is not non-hemodynamics and/or it is not admissible. sent8: if the allomorph is not anodic then the desk is not a kind of a peripheral and it does not filiate mayfly. sent9: the organza is a ravigote but it is not anodic if there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent10: if the organza is a sogginess but it is not scriptural it is a Hamamelidoxylon. sent11: the fomite is a kind of allophonic a ravigote if the pearlite does not filiate mayfly. sent12: the organza is a kind of a ravigote if there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent13: there is something such that that it is a kind of a self-starter and it does not filiate specialization is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent15: the pearlite does not filiate mayfly if that the desk is not a kind of a peripheral and it does not filiate mayfly is not false. sent16: The tattler filiates organza. sent17: that the T-bar is not the ravigote if the T-bar is allophonic but it is not anodic is not incorrect.

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

sent1: ¬{I}{h} -> ¬({H}{g} & ¬{G}{g}) sent2: (x): ¬({L}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{L}{i} sent3: ({D}{c} & {B}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: {E}{a} sent5: (x): ({K}x v ¬{J}x) -> ¬{I}x sent6: ¬{IH}{cf} sent7: (x): ¬{L}x -> ({K}{h} v ¬{J}{h}) sent8: ¬{C}{f} -> (¬{F}{e} & ¬{A}{e}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent10: ({FD}{a} & ¬{FF}{a}) -> {HM}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{d} -> ({D}{c} & {B}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent13: (Ex): ¬({L}x & ¬{M}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent15: (¬{F}{e} & ¬{A}{e}) -> ¬{A}{d} sent16: {AA}{aa} sent17: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the changer filiates tattler is right.

{E}{gh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the organza is a kind of allophonic thing that does filiate tattler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the microeconomist is not a slant that the guesser does filiate self-knowledge but it is not a treat is incorrect. sent2: the desperate is not a kind of a self-starter if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a self-starter and does not filiate specialization is not false is wrong. sent3: if the fomite is allophonic thing that is a kind of a ravigote the T-bar is not allophonic. sent4: the organza filiates tattler. sent5: if something is hemodynamics and/or it is not admissible then it is not a slant. sent6: the chick is not totipotent. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a self-starter the microeconomist is not non-hemodynamics and/or it is not admissible. sent8: if the allomorph is not anodic then the desk is not a kind of a peripheral and it does not filiate mayfly. sent9: the organza is a ravigote but it is not anodic if there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent10: if the organza is a sogginess but it is not scriptural it is a Hamamelidoxylon. sent11: the fomite is a kind of allophonic a ravigote if the pearlite does not filiate mayfly. sent12: the organza is a kind of a ravigote if there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent13: there is something such that that it is a kind of a self-starter and it does not filiate specialization is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly. sent15: the pearlite does not filiate mayfly if that the desk is not a kind of a peripheral and it does not filiate mayfly is not false. sent16: The tattler filiates organza. sent17: that the T-bar is not the ravigote if the T-bar is allophonic but it is not anodic is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly.

there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly.

the organza is a ravigote but it is not anodic if there exists something such that it does not filiate mayfly.

there exists something such that if it is unforgettable that it is photometric and it is not a financier does not hold.

sent1: that something is photometric and it is a financier is not true if it is unforgettable. sent2: there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then it is a kind of photometric thing that does not financier. sent3: the fact that the fact that the fact that something is tonal and is not a diplococcus is not false is incorrect if it does filiate erythropoietin hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then the fact that it is photometric thing that is a financier is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the bondman is photometric thing that is a financier is not correct if that it is unforgettable is not incorrect.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (x): {T}x -> ¬({EU}x & ¬{AU}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that if it does filiate erythropoietin that it is tonal and it is not a diplococcus is not true.

(Ex): {T}x -> ¬({EU}x & ¬{AU}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is unforgettable that it is photometric and it is not a financier does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is photometric and it is a financier is not true if it is unforgettable. sent2: there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then it is a kind of photometric thing that does not financier. sent3: the fact that the fact that the fact that something is tonal and is not a diplococcus is not false is incorrect if it does filiate erythropoietin hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then the fact that it is photometric thing that is a financier is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the bondman is photometric thing that is a financier is not correct if that it is unforgettable is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then the fact that it is photometric thing that is a financier is incorrect.

there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then the fact that it is photometric thing that is a financier is incorrect.

there exists something such that if it is unforgettable then it is a kind of photometric thing that does not financier.

the ectoproct is not unipolar.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a ewe and does not crab tattler. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler is not right the sandbagger scales chromate. sent4: if something is a ewe then the sandbagger scales chromate. sent5: the sandbagger is cosmopolitan but it does not scale chromate if that the feminist is a kind of a wellpoint is not right. sent6: the nidus is a perfectibility if there is something such that the fact that it is non-positionable thing that does not crab tattler is false. sent7: if the sandbagger scales chromate then the ectoproct is unipolar.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ectoproct is not unipolar.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ectoproct is not unipolar. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a ewe and does not crab tattler. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler is not right the sandbagger scales chromate. sent4: if something is a ewe then the sandbagger scales chromate. sent5: the sandbagger is cosmopolitan but it does not scale chromate if that the feminist is a kind of a wellpoint is not right. sent6: the nidus is a perfectibility if there is something such that the fact that it is non-positionable thing that does not crab tattler is false. sent7: if the sandbagger scales chromate then the ectoproct is unipolar. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sandbagger scales chromate is right.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold.

There is a fact that crab tattler does not hold and that it is not a kind of ewe.

if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler is not right the sandbagger scales chromate.

the ectoproct is not unipolar.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a ewe and does not crab tattler. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler is not right the sandbagger scales chromate. sent4: if something is a ewe then the sandbagger scales chromate. sent5: the sandbagger is cosmopolitan but it does not scale chromate if that the feminist is a kind of a wellpoint is not right. sent6: the nidus is a perfectibility if there is something such that the fact that it is non-positionable thing that does not crab tattler is false. sent7: if the sandbagger scales chromate then the ectoproct is unipolar.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ectoproct is not unipolar.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ectoproct is not unipolar. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a ewe and does not crab tattler. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler is not right the sandbagger scales chromate. sent4: if something is a ewe then the sandbagger scales chromate. sent5: the sandbagger is cosmopolitan but it does not scale chromate if that the feminist is a kind of a wellpoint is not right. sent6: the nidus is a perfectibility if there is something such that the fact that it is non-positionable thing that does not crab tattler is false. sent7: if the sandbagger scales chromate then the ectoproct is unipolar. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sandbagger scales chromate is right.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a ewe and it does not crab tattler does not hold.

It is not a kind of ewe and it does not hold crab tattler.

if the sandbagger scales chromate then the ectoproct is unipolar.

the fact that both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs does not hold if the scaling Mott happens. sent2: the scaling antispasmodic does not occur. sent3: if the scaling comptrollership happens then the adamantineness occurs. sent4: if the titillation happens the fact that the hydrocephalicness does not occur and the scaling hoop does not occur is not true. sent5: if the advent occurs then the fact that the vasomotorness but not the off-siteness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the burrlikeness does not occur the scaling comptrollership occurs and the muffing occurs. sent7: the consultation happens if the subsonicness does not occur. sent8: that the preparation does not occur and the seriousness does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the scaling toxicologist happens the non-burrlikeness and the non-australopithecineness occurs. sent10: the monocarpicness does not occur if the fact that the endomorphicness does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endomorphicness happens but the sufficing does not occur does not hold if the inopportuneness occurs. sent12: the filiating airship does not occur. sent13: if the scaling Mott occurs then that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness does not occur does not hold. sent14: that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur. sent15: the endomorphicness does not occur if the fact that the openingness and the endomorphicness happens is not true. sent16: that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness occurs is false. sent17: if the adamantineness happens then that the filiating airship does not occur and the scaling Mott does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs is not true. sent19: if that the scaling Mott happens is not incorrect that both the non-antitypicness and the monocarpicness occurs is not true.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{GS} sent3: {I} -> {H} sent4: {AK} -> ¬(¬{EJ} & ¬{AM}) sent5: {FK} -> ¬({Q} & ¬{DL}) sent6: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent7: ¬{AD} -> {FT} sent8: ¬(¬{DT} & ¬{IQ}) sent9: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent11: {GF} -> ¬({E} & ¬{BO}) sent12: ¬{A} sent13: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent14: ¬{A} -> {B} sent15: ¬({G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent16: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {H} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent18: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent19: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D})

PROVED

PROVED

both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens.

(¬{C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs does not hold if the scaling Mott happens. sent2: the scaling antispasmodic does not occur. sent3: if the scaling comptrollership happens then the adamantineness occurs. sent4: if the titillation happens the fact that the hydrocephalicness does not occur and the scaling hoop does not occur is not true. sent5: if the advent occurs then the fact that the vasomotorness but not the off-siteness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the burrlikeness does not occur the scaling comptrollership occurs and the muffing occurs. sent7: the consultation happens if the subsonicness does not occur. sent8: that the preparation does not occur and the seriousness does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the scaling toxicologist happens the non-burrlikeness and the non-australopithecineness occurs. sent10: the monocarpicness does not occur if the fact that the endomorphicness does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endomorphicness happens but the sufficing does not occur does not hold if the inopportuneness occurs. sent12: the filiating airship does not occur. sent13: if the scaling Mott occurs then that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness does not occur does not hold. sent14: that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur. sent15: the endomorphicness does not occur if the fact that the openingness and the endomorphicness happens is not true. sent16: that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness occurs is false. sent17: if the adamantineness happens then that the filiating airship does not occur and the scaling Mott does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs is not true. sent19: if that the scaling Mott happens is not incorrect that both the non-antitypicness and the monocarpicness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent12 -> int1: the scaling Mott happens.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur.

The scaling Mott does not occur because the filiating airship does not occur.

the filiating airship does not occur.

the fact that both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens is incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs does not hold if the scaling Mott happens. sent2: the scaling antispasmodic does not occur. sent3: if the scaling comptrollership happens then the adamantineness occurs. sent4: if the titillation happens the fact that the hydrocephalicness does not occur and the scaling hoop does not occur is not true. sent5: if the advent occurs then the fact that the vasomotorness but not the off-siteness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the burrlikeness does not occur the scaling comptrollership occurs and the muffing occurs. sent7: the consultation happens if the subsonicness does not occur. sent8: that the preparation does not occur and the seriousness does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the scaling toxicologist happens the non-burrlikeness and the non-australopithecineness occurs. sent10: the monocarpicness does not occur if the fact that the endomorphicness does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endomorphicness happens but the sufficing does not occur does not hold if the inopportuneness occurs. sent12: the filiating airship does not occur. sent13: if the scaling Mott occurs then that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness does not occur does not hold. sent14: that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur. sent15: the endomorphicness does not occur if the fact that the openingness and the endomorphicness happens is not true. sent16: that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness occurs is false. sent17: if the adamantineness happens then that the filiating airship does not occur and the scaling Mott does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs is not true. sent19: if that the scaling Mott happens is not incorrect that both the non-antitypicness and the monocarpicness occurs is not true.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{GS} sent3: {I} -> {H} sent4: {AK} -> ¬(¬{EJ} & ¬{AM}) sent5: {FK} -> ¬({Q} & ¬{DL}) sent6: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent7: ¬{AD} -> {FT} sent8: ¬(¬{DT} & ¬{IQ}) sent9: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent10: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent11: {GF} -> ¬({E} & ¬{BO}) sent12: ¬{A} sent13: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent14: ¬{A} -> {B} sent15: ¬({G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent16: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {H} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent18: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent19: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D})

PROVED

PROVED

both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens.

(¬{C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-antitypicness and the non-monocarpicness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs does not hold if the scaling Mott happens. sent2: the scaling antispasmodic does not occur. sent3: if the scaling comptrollership happens then the adamantineness occurs. sent4: if the titillation happens the fact that the hydrocephalicness does not occur and the scaling hoop does not occur is not true. sent5: if the advent occurs then the fact that the vasomotorness but not the off-siteness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the burrlikeness does not occur the scaling comptrollership occurs and the muffing occurs. sent7: the consultation happens if the subsonicness does not occur. sent8: that the preparation does not occur and the seriousness does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the scaling toxicologist happens the non-burrlikeness and the non-australopithecineness occurs. sent10: the monocarpicness does not occur if the fact that the endomorphicness does not occur is not wrong. sent11: that the endomorphicness happens but the sufficing does not occur does not hold if the inopportuneness occurs. sent12: the filiating airship does not occur. sent13: if the scaling Mott occurs then that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness does not occur does not hold. sent14: that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur. sent15: the endomorphicness does not occur if the fact that the openingness and the endomorphicness happens is not true. sent16: that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness occurs is false. sent17: if the adamantineness happens then that the filiating airship does not occur and the scaling Mott does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the antitypicness but not the monocarpicness occurs is not true. sent19: if that the scaling Mott happens is not incorrect that both the non-antitypicness and the monocarpicness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent12 -> int1: the scaling Mott happens.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the filiating airship does not occur prevents that the scaling Mott does not occur.

The scaling Mott doesn't occur because the filiating airship doesn't occur.

if the scaling Mott occurs then that the antitypicness does not occur and the monocarpicness does not occur does not hold.

the Californian is not a breakfast.

sent1: something does not unfasten scaffold and does not furl fluency if it is a hawkmoth. sent2: if that something is not a Erythronium and not a keypad is not right then that it is a kind of a Erythronium is right. sent3: something breakfasts if it is a Necturus. sent4: if the coast is a kind of a Erythronium that the amine is a hawkmoth is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the coast is disciplinary is not incorrect. sent6: if something is a snore then it does breakfast. sent7: something is not a breakfast if the fact that it is not a kind of a Necturus hold. sent8: if that the Californian does breakfast hold then it is restful. sent9: the Californian is a kind of a Necturus. sent10: something is not a kind of a Necturus if that it is both a handwear and not a deaconess does not hold. sent11: the Californian is arbitrative if it is a Necturus. sent12: something is not Danish if it is dextral. sent13: if something that is a homeopathy does not unfasten fluke then it does furl ERA. sent14: everything is dextral. sent15: something is a homeopathy and it emcees if it is not a Danish. sent16: the suffragan is a Necturus. sent17: if something that does not unfasten scaffold does not furl fluency then that it does not unfasten fluke is not false. sent18: if the fact that something is disciplinary is not incorrect that it is both not a Erythronium and not a keypad does not hold. sent19: if the Californian is a kind of a Necturus then it is striate.

¬{C}{aa}

sent1: (x): {K}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{N}x) -> {L}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: {L}{b} -> {K}{a} sent5: {M}{b} sent6: (x): {CB}x -> {C}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {C}{aa} -> {CI}{aa} sent9: {A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent11: {A}{aa} -> {AM}{aa} sent12: (x): {P}x -> ¬{O}x sent13: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {E}x sent14: (x): {P}x sent15: (x): ¬{O}x -> ({F}x & {J}x) sent16: {A}{o} sent17: (x): (¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent18: (x): {M}x -> ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{N}x) sent19: {A}{aa} -> {EP}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

if the knife is a snore it is a kind of a breakfast.

{CB}{bo} -> {C}{bo}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Californian is not a breakfast. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not unfasten scaffold and does not furl fluency if it is a hawkmoth. sent2: if that something is not a Erythronium and not a keypad is not right then that it is a kind of a Erythronium is right. sent3: something breakfasts if it is a Necturus. sent4: if the coast is a kind of a Erythronium that the amine is a hawkmoth is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the coast is disciplinary is not incorrect. sent6: if something is a snore then it does breakfast. sent7: something is not a breakfast if the fact that it is not a kind of a Necturus hold. sent8: if that the Californian does breakfast hold then it is restful. sent9: the Californian is a kind of a Necturus. sent10: something is not a kind of a Necturus if that it is both a handwear and not a deaconess does not hold. sent11: the Californian is arbitrative if it is a Necturus. sent12: something is not Danish if it is dextral. sent13: if something that is a homeopathy does not unfasten fluke then it does furl ERA. sent14: everything is dextral. sent15: something is a homeopathy and it emcees if it is not a Danish. sent16: the suffragan is a Necturus. sent17: if something that does not unfasten scaffold does not furl fluency then that it does not unfasten fluke is not false. sent18: if the fact that something is disciplinary is not incorrect that it is both not a Erythronium and not a keypad does not hold. sent19: if the Californian is a kind of a Necturus then it is striate. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the Californian is a kind of a breakfast if it is a Necturus.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something breakfasts if it is a Necturus.

something breakfasts if it is a Necturus.

the Californian is a kind of a Necturus.

the antiemetic is not a Kunlun and it does not furl confederate.

sent1: something is a kind of alphanumerics thing that is not a metropolitan. sent2: the pepsin is not textile if there is something such that that it does not scythe fellowship and it does furl schwa is incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that that it is both alphanumerics and a metropolitan does not hold. sent4: if the watercraft does not scythe yawl then the cheekbone does not sing rima but it is a kind of a technophile. sent5: if something is non-sectorial then the fact that it does not scythe fellowship and it does furl schwa is not true. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not alphanumerics the antiemetic does not furl confederate. sent7: if that something is a shelter and is a Vombatidae does not hold it is not a shelter. sent8: something either is not non-metropolitan or is alphanumerics or both if it is not a shelter. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does moderate and it is a kind of a Cervidae is false the Calvinist is not sectorial. sent10: the fact that the feel is a shelter that is a kind of a Vombatidae does not hold if there is something such that it is not textile. sent11: if the feel is alphanumerics the buffalo does furl confederate. sent12: if the fact that the watercraft does not hedge and sings chancellor is false then it does not scythe yawl. sent13: if the cheekbone does not sing rima then the fact that the muller does moderate and it is a Cervidae is not correct. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and it is not an eyesight is not correct the antiemetic is not a Kunlun. sent15: the fact that the watercraft is not a hedge but it does sing chancellor does not hold. sent16: if the feel is a metropolitan the buffalo does furl confederate. sent17: there exists something such that it is insensible and not an eyesight. sent18: there exists something such that that it is alphanumerics and it is not a metropolitan is not right. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and is not a kind of an eyesight is incorrect.

(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the antiemetic is not a Kunlun and it does not furl confederate is wrong.

¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the antiemetic is not a Kunlun and it does not furl confederate. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of alphanumerics thing that is not a metropolitan. sent2: the pepsin is not textile if there is something such that that it does not scythe fellowship and it does furl schwa is incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that that it is both alphanumerics and a metropolitan does not hold. sent4: if the watercraft does not scythe yawl then the cheekbone does not sing rima but it is a kind of a technophile. sent5: if something is non-sectorial then the fact that it does not scythe fellowship and it does furl schwa is not true. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not alphanumerics the antiemetic does not furl confederate. sent7: if that something is a shelter and is a Vombatidae does not hold it is not a shelter. sent8: something either is not non-metropolitan or is alphanumerics or both if it is not a shelter. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does moderate and it is a kind of a Cervidae is false the Calvinist is not sectorial. sent10: the fact that the feel is a shelter that is a kind of a Vombatidae does not hold if there is something such that it is not textile. sent11: if the feel is alphanumerics the buffalo does furl confederate. sent12: if the fact that the watercraft does not hedge and sings chancellor is false then it does not scythe yawl. sent13: if the cheekbone does not sing rima then the fact that the muller does moderate and it is a Cervidae is not correct. sent14: if there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and it is not an eyesight is not correct the antiemetic is not a Kunlun. sent15: the fact that the watercraft is not a hedge but it does sing chancellor does not hold. sent16: if the feel is a metropolitan the buffalo does furl confederate. sent17: there exists something such that it is insensible and not an eyesight. sent18: there exists something such that that it is alphanumerics and it is not a metropolitan is not right. sent19: there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and is not a kind of an eyesight is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and is not a kind of an eyesight is incorrect.

there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and is not a kind of an eyesight is incorrect.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is insensible and it is not an eyesight is not correct the antiemetic is not a Kunlun.

either the Lilo is stoloniferous or it is monistic or both.

sent1: that something is stoloniferous or it is monistic or both is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a stanza is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that that that it unfastens afghani and is not metrological is not wrong does not hold. sent3: that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is not metrological is false. sent4: that that the Lilo does not unfasten afghani but it is monistic is not right is correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not monistic and not metrological does not hold the Lilo does unfasten afghani. sent6: the Lilo is stoloniferous if there exists something such that that it does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological is wrong. sent7: that that the backplate is not exempt but a Borodino is correct is false. sent8: the fact that the tollgate is monistic is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is not stoloniferous and it does not unfasten afghani is not correct. sent9: something does not sing Naomi and/or it is not a stanza if it does not unfasten Lutheran. sent10: something is a Mississippian but it does not unfasten largeness if that it is not psychomotor is true. sent11: that the Lilo is not a Mississippian and does not unfasten afghani is not true. sent12: something does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not metrological and it does not unfasten afghani does not hold the tollgate is monistic. sent14: the fact that the fact that the tollgate does unfasten afghani and is not metrological does not hold is not wrong. sent15: the anterior does not unfasten Lutheran if something is a Mississippian and does not unfasten largeness. sent16: if that something is not exempt but a Borodino is not right it is not psychomotor. sent17: the fact that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is metrological is wrong.

({A}{a} v {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the Lilo is stoloniferous or it is monistic or both is false.

¬({A}{a} v {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the Lilo is stoloniferous or it is monistic or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is stoloniferous or it is monistic or both is not true if the fact that it is not a kind of a stanza is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that that that it unfastens afghani and is not metrological is not wrong does not hold. sent3: that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is not metrological is false. sent4: that that the Lilo does not unfasten afghani but it is monistic is not right is correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not monistic and not metrological does not hold the Lilo does unfasten afghani. sent6: the Lilo is stoloniferous if there exists something such that that it does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological is wrong. sent7: that that the backplate is not exempt but a Borodino is correct is false. sent8: the fact that the tollgate is monistic is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is not stoloniferous and it does not unfasten afghani is not correct. sent9: something does not sing Naomi and/or it is not a stanza if it does not unfasten Lutheran. sent10: something is a Mississippian but it does not unfasten largeness if that it is not psychomotor is true. sent11: that the Lilo is not a Mississippian and does not unfasten afghani is not true. sent12: something does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is not metrological and it does not unfasten afghani does not hold the tollgate is monistic. sent14: the fact that the fact that the tollgate does unfasten afghani and is not metrological does not hold is not wrong. sent15: the anterior does not unfasten Lutheran if something is a Mississippian and does not unfasten largeness. sent16: if that something is not exempt but a Borodino is not right it is not psychomotor. sent17: the fact that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is metrological is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: there exists something such that that it does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological is not true.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the Lilo is stoloniferous.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is not metrological is false.

that the tollgate does not unfasten afghani and is not metrological is false.

the Lilo is stoloniferous if there exists something such that that it does not unfasten afghani and it is not metrological is wrong.

the chordophone is not a kind of a play.

sent1: the chordophone is a kind of a play if it bogs. sent2: the fact that the chordophone is a kind of non-audiovisual thing that is a kind of a bog is incorrect. sent3: the combustion does furl balloonist if the fact that it is not a kind of a sound and it is not an insinuation does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the chordophone is non-audiovisual thing that is not a bog is false it plays. sent5: everything does not furl secret. sent6: the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial. sent7: if the fact that something is not an exchange and it does not furl secret is false it is not a play. sent8: the fact that something is not an audiovisual but it bogs is incorrect if the fact that it is a colonial is right. sent9: the good-king-henry is not a kind of a colonial if there exists something such that it does not furl secret and is not a theatrical. sent10: if the good-king-henry is not a colonial then that the folate is not a kind of an exchange and is a play is not true. sent11: the chordophone sings ukase if the fact that it is non-audiovisual and not a pace is false. sent12: if the chordophone is a colonial that it is not an audiovisual and it bogs is wrong. sent13: if something is a play then the fact that it is not a bog and it is not a kind of a colonial is not true. sent14: if something is not a theatrical then that the fact that it is not an exchange and does not furl secret is correct does not hold. sent15: the chordophone is a colonial.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬(¬{ER}{ga} & ¬{GL}{ga}) -> {CI}{ga} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{FU}{aa}) -> {JC}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent14: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the chordophone does not play.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chordophone is not a kind of a play. ; $context$ = sent1: the chordophone is a kind of a play if it bogs. sent2: the fact that the chordophone is a kind of non-audiovisual thing that is a kind of a bog is incorrect. sent3: the combustion does furl balloonist if the fact that it is not a kind of a sound and it is not an insinuation does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the chordophone is non-audiovisual thing that is not a bog is false it plays. sent5: everything does not furl secret. sent6: the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial. sent7: if the fact that something is not an exchange and it does not furl secret is false it is not a play. sent8: the fact that something is not an audiovisual but it bogs is incorrect if the fact that it is a colonial is right. sent9: the good-king-henry is not a kind of a colonial if there exists something such that it does not furl secret and is not a theatrical. sent10: if the good-king-henry is not a colonial then that the folate is not a kind of an exchange and is a play is not true. sent11: the chordophone sings ukase if the fact that it is non-audiovisual and not a pace is false. sent12: if the chordophone is a colonial that it is not an audiovisual and it bogs is wrong. sent13: if something is a play then the fact that it is not a bog and it is not a kind of a colonial is not true. sent14: if something is not a theatrical then that the fact that it is not an exchange and does not furl secret is correct does not hold. sent15: the chordophone is a colonial. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the chordophone is a colonial then the fact that it is not a kind of an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the chordophone is not an audiovisual and is not a kind of a bog is incorrect.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial.

If it is a kind of colonial, the fact that something is not an audiovisual does not hold.

the chordophone is a colonial.

the chordophone is not a kind of a play.

sent1: the chordophone is a kind of a play if it bogs. sent2: the fact that the chordophone is a kind of non-audiovisual thing that is a kind of a bog is incorrect. sent3: the combustion does furl balloonist if the fact that it is not a kind of a sound and it is not an insinuation does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the chordophone is non-audiovisual thing that is not a bog is false it plays. sent5: everything does not furl secret. sent6: the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial. sent7: if the fact that something is not an exchange and it does not furl secret is false it is not a play. sent8: the fact that something is not an audiovisual but it bogs is incorrect if the fact that it is a colonial is right. sent9: the good-king-henry is not a kind of a colonial if there exists something such that it does not furl secret and is not a theatrical. sent10: if the good-king-henry is not a colonial then that the folate is not a kind of an exchange and is a play is not true. sent11: the chordophone sings ukase if the fact that it is non-audiovisual and not a pace is false. sent12: if the chordophone is a colonial that it is not an audiovisual and it bogs is wrong. sent13: if something is a play then the fact that it is not a bog and it is not a kind of a colonial is not true. sent14: if something is not a theatrical then that the fact that it is not an exchange and does not furl secret is correct does not hold. sent15: the chordophone is a colonial.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬(¬{ER}{ga} & ¬{GL}{ga}) -> {CI}{ga} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{FU}{aa}) -> {JC}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent14: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent15: {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the chordophone does not play.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chordophone is not a kind of a play. ; $context$ = sent1: the chordophone is a kind of a play if it bogs. sent2: the fact that the chordophone is a kind of non-audiovisual thing that is a kind of a bog is incorrect. sent3: the combustion does furl balloonist if the fact that it is not a kind of a sound and it is not an insinuation does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the chordophone is non-audiovisual thing that is not a bog is false it plays. sent5: everything does not furl secret. sent6: the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial. sent7: if the fact that something is not an exchange and it does not furl secret is false it is not a play. sent8: the fact that something is not an audiovisual but it bogs is incorrect if the fact that it is a colonial is right. sent9: the good-king-henry is not a kind of a colonial if there exists something such that it does not furl secret and is not a theatrical. sent10: if the good-king-henry is not a colonial then that the folate is not a kind of an exchange and is a play is not true. sent11: the chordophone sings ukase if the fact that it is non-audiovisual and not a pace is false. sent12: if the chordophone is a colonial that it is not an audiovisual and it bogs is wrong. sent13: if something is a play then the fact that it is not a bog and it is not a kind of a colonial is not true. sent14: if something is not a theatrical then that the fact that it is not an exchange and does not furl secret is correct does not hold. sent15: the chordophone is a colonial. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the chordophone is a colonial then the fact that it is not a kind of an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the fact that the chordophone is not an audiovisual and is not a kind of a bog is incorrect.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not an audiovisual and it does not bog does not hold if it is a kind of a colonial.

If it is a kind of colonial, the fact that something isn't an audiovisual doesn't hold.

if the fact that the chordophone is non-audiovisual thing that is not a bog is false it plays.

the sloe is a pascal and catechetical.

sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the HF is a kind of a pantaloon.

{A}{ai}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloe is a pascal and catechetical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sloe does furl downpour.; sent3 -> int2: the sloe is a kind of a pascal if it furls downpour.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sloe is a pascal.; sent5 -> int4: if that the sloe is a mestranol and does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right it is catechetical.; sent2 & sent6 -> int5: that the sloe is a mestranol but it does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sloe is catechetical hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour.

The sloe furls downpour if the papoose is a pantaloon.

the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon.

the sloe is a pascal and catechetical.

sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the HF is a kind of a pantaloon.

{A}{ai}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloe is a pascal and catechetical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sloe does furl downpour.; sent3 -> int2: the sloe is a kind of a pascal if it furls downpour.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sloe is a pascal.; sent5 -> int4: if that the sloe is a mestranol and does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right it is catechetical.; sent2 & sent6 -> int5: that the sloe is a mestranol but it does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sloe is catechetical hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour.

The sloe furls rain if the papoose is a pantaloon.

something is a pascal if it furls downpour.

the sloe is a pascal and catechetical.

sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the HF is a kind of a pantaloon.

{A}{ai}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloe is a pascal and catechetical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sloe does furl downpour.; sent3 -> int2: the sloe is a kind of a pascal if it furls downpour.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sloe is a pascal.; sent5 -> int4: if that the sloe is a mestranol and does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right it is catechetical.; sent2 & sent6 -> int5: that the sloe is a mestranol but it does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sloe is catechetical hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour.

The sloe furls will rain if the papoose is a pantaloon.

if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical.

the sloe is a pascal and catechetical.

sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the HF is a kind of a pantaloon.

{A}{ai}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloe is a pascal and catechetical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sloe does furl downpour.; sent3 -> int2: the sloe is a kind of a pascal if it furls downpour.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sloe is a pascal.; sent5 -> int4: if that the sloe is a mestranol and does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right it is catechetical.; sent2 & sent6 -> int5: that the sloe is a mestranol but it does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sloe is catechetical hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour.

The sloe furls are a kind of pantaloon.

there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx.

the sloe is a pascal and catechetical.

sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the HF is a kind of a pantaloon.

{A}{ai}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloe is a pascal and catechetical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour. sent2: there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx. sent3: something is a pascal if it furls downpour. sent4: the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is false then it is catechetical. sent6: if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true. sent7: something that does not furl downpour is a kind of a pantaloon. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the sloe does furl downpour.; sent3 -> int2: the sloe is a kind of a pascal if it furls downpour.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sloe is a pascal.; sent5 -> int4: if that the sloe is a mestranol and does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right it is catechetical.; sent2 & sent6 -> int5: that the sloe is a mestranol but it does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sloe is catechetical hold.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the papoose is a kind of a pantaloon then the sloe furls downpour.

The sloe furls rain if the Papoose is a pantaloon.

if there exists something such that it does unfasten Dolichonyx then that the sloe is a kind of a mestranol that does not unfasten Dolichonyx is not true.

the heparin is not a kind of a Germinal.

sent1: if the heparin is a pneumothorax it is a wandflower. sent2: the governess is critical. sent3: the governess furls gusseted. sent4: the heparin is a figwort. sent5: something is a Germinal if it is critical. sent6: The gusseted furls governess. sent7: the heparin does furl gusseted. sent8: if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical. sent9: the geometrid furls gusseted. sent10: the carrack furls gusseted. sent11: the heparin is a Maginot. sent12: the gallinacean does furl gusseted. sent13: the governess is critical if the heparin is a Germinal.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {CG}{b} -> {AN}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {HI}{b} sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {A}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: {A}{m} sent10: {A}{l} sent11: {HR}{b} sent12: {A}{ca} sent13: {C}{b} -> {B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the heparin is not a kind of a Germinal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the heparin is a pneumothorax it is a wandflower. sent2: the governess is critical. sent3: the governess furls gusseted. sent4: the heparin is a figwort. sent5: something is a Germinal if it is critical. sent6: The gusseted furls governess. sent7: the heparin does furl gusseted. sent8: if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical. sent9: the geometrid furls gusseted. sent10: the carrack furls gusseted. sent11: the heparin is a Maginot. sent12: the gallinacean does furl gusseted. sent13: the governess is critical if the heparin is a Germinal. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the heparin is critical.; sent5 -> int2: the fact that the heparin is a kind of a Germinal is correct if it is critical.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical.

The heparin is critical if the governess furls.

the governess furls gusseted.

the heparin is not a kind of a Germinal.

sent1: if the heparin is a pneumothorax it is a wandflower. sent2: the governess is critical. sent3: the governess furls gusseted. sent4: the heparin is a figwort. sent5: something is a Germinal if it is critical. sent6: The gusseted furls governess. sent7: the heparin does furl gusseted. sent8: if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical. sent9: the geometrid furls gusseted. sent10: the carrack furls gusseted. sent11: the heparin is a Maginot. sent12: the gallinacean does furl gusseted. sent13: the governess is critical if the heparin is a Germinal.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {CG}{b} -> {AN}{b} sent2: {B}{a} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {HI}{b} sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {A}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: {A}{m} sent10: {A}{l} sent11: {HR}{b} sent12: {A}{ca} sent13: {C}{b} -> {B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the heparin is not a kind of a Germinal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the heparin is a pneumothorax it is a wandflower. sent2: the governess is critical. sent3: the governess furls gusseted. sent4: the heparin is a figwort. sent5: something is a Germinal if it is critical. sent6: The gusseted furls governess. sent7: the heparin does furl gusseted. sent8: if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical. sent9: the geometrid furls gusseted. sent10: the carrack furls gusseted. sent11: the heparin is a Maginot. sent12: the gallinacean does furl gusseted. sent13: the governess is critical if the heparin is a Germinal. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the heparin is critical.; sent5 -> int2: the fact that the heparin is a kind of a Germinal is correct if it is critical.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the governess furls gusseted the heparin is critical.

The heparin is important if the governess furls.

something is a Germinal if it is critical.

the sleet does not unfasten foul.

sent1: if something that scythes Vaccinium does not scythe balloonist then it is a Freudian. sent2: that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a bark and not a climb is not true. sent4: the coop scythes Vaccinium. sent5: the coop is a mycologist if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bark and it is not a climb does not hold. sent6: The Vaccinium scythes coop. sent7: The balloonist does not scythe coop. sent8: if the coop is a kind of a mycologist and it is a Freudian the sleet does not unfasten foul.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: {E}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: {AD}{ac} sent7: ¬{AE}{ad} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sleet does not unfasten foul. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that scythes Vaccinium does not scythe balloonist then it is a Freudian. sent2: that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a bark and not a climb is not true. sent4: the coop scythes Vaccinium. sent5: the coop is a mycologist if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bark and it is not a climb does not hold. sent6: The Vaccinium scythes coop. sent7: The balloonist does not scythe coop. sent8: if the coop is a kind of a mycologist and it is a Freudian the sleet does not unfasten foul. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true.

The arthrogram does not bark and does not climb.

the coop is a mycologist if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bark and it is not a climb does not hold.

the sleet does not unfasten foul.

sent1: if something that scythes Vaccinium does not scythe balloonist then it is a Freudian. sent2: that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a bark and not a climb is not true. sent4: the coop scythes Vaccinium. sent5: the coop is a mycologist if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bark and it is not a climb does not hold. sent6: The Vaccinium scythes coop. sent7: The balloonist does not scythe coop. sent8: if the coop is a kind of a mycologist and it is a Freudian the sleet does not unfasten foul.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: {E}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent6: {AD}{ac} sent7: ¬{AE}{ad} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sleet does not unfasten foul. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that scythes Vaccinium does not scythe balloonist then it is a Freudian. sent2: that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a bark and not a climb is not true. sent4: the coop scythes Vaccinium. sent5: the coop is a mycologist if there exists something such that the fact that it does not bark and it is not a climb does not hold. sent6: The Vaccinium scythes coop. sent7: The balloonist does not scythe coop. sent8: if the coop is a kind of a mycologist and it is a Freudian the sleet does not unfasten foul. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the arthrogram does not bark and does not climb is not true.

The arthrogram doesn't bark and doesn't climb.

if something that scythes Vaccinium does not scythe balloonist then it is a Freudian.

the niqab does unfasten sporophyte.

sent1: if something is quiet then it does not unfasten sporophyte and it sings Plethodontidae. sent2: the niqab finances. sent3: if a non-quiet thing is a transferability it does sing Plethodontidae. sent4: the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae. sent5: The Plethodontidae does not sing ammonium. sent6: the fact that the ammonium finances hold. sent7: if the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae then the niqab unfastens sporophyte and it finances. sent8: something is non-infernal thing that is a kind of a transferability if it is not a picture.

{AA}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the niqab does not unfasten sporophyte.

¬{AA}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the niqab does unfasten sporophyte. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is quiet then it does not unfasten sporophyte and it sings Plethodontidae. sent2: the niqab finances. sent3: if a non-quiet thing is a transferability it does sing Plethodontidae. sent4: the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae. sent5: The Plethodontidae does not sing ammonium. sent6: the fact that the ammonium finances hold. sent7: if the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae then the niqab unfastens sporophyte and it finances. sent8: something is non-infernal thing that is a kind of a transferability if it is not a picture. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the niqab does unfasten sporophyte and it does finance.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae then the niqab unfastens sporophyte and it finances.

if the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae then the niqab unfastens sporophyte and it finances.

the ammonium does not sing Plethodontidae.

the twilight is a Ceylonite.

sent1: the twilight does not furl hairsplitter. sent2: if the allegorizer is not a Ceylonite it is not surmountable. sent3: the hairsplitter is politics if the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae but it is not politics does not hold. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-allomerous a leaf does not hold it does not leaf. sent5: the fact that the sarong either unfastens patriarchy or is not contestable or both does not hold. sent6: if the twilight does not furl hairsplitter it is choleraic. sent7: if something is not allomerous and is not non-politics then it does not leaf. sent8: something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic. sent9: the steamboat is a Ceylonite. sent10: if something is not a kind of a leaf it is not choleraic or it does not furl hairsplitter or both. sent11: that the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae and is not politics does not hold if there is something such that it is not a kind of a teleportation is not incorrect. sent12: the twilight does furl hairsplitter if it does not sing blanketed. sent13: if the fact that the immunologist lurches and does not furl running is false it is not a teleportation. sent14: that something is a Ceylonite but not choleraic is false if it is not a leaf. sent15: the Essene does not furl hairsplitter if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Ceylonite and it is not choleraic is not true. sent16: the immunologist does not sing berth if the fact that the sarong unfastens patriarchy and/or it is incontestable is not correct. sent17: that something is a lurch but it does not furl running is not right if it does not sing berth. sent18: if something is politics that it is not allomerous and it does leaf is not correct. sent19: The hairsplitter does not furl twilight.

{C}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the Essene does not furl hairsplitter hold.

¬{B}{el}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the twilight is a Ceylonite. ; $context$ = sent1: the twilight does not furl hairsplitter. sent2: if the allegorizer is not a Ceylonite it is not surmountable. sent3: the hairsplitter is politics if the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae but it is not politics does not hold. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-allomerous a leaf does not hold it does not leaf. sent5: the fact that the sarong either unfastens patriarchy or is not contestable or both does not hold. sent6: if the twilight does not furl hairsplitter it is choleraic. sent7: if something is not allomerous and is not non-politics then it does not leaf. sent8: something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic. sent9: the steamboat is a Ceylonite. sent10: if something is not a kind of a leaf it is not choleraic or it does not furl hairsplitter or both. sent11: that the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae and is not politics does not hold if there is something such that it is not a kind of a teleportation is not incorrect. sent12: the twilight does furl hairsplitter if it does not sing blanketed. sent13: if the fact that the immunologist lurches and does not furl running is false it is not a teleportation. sent14: that something is a Ceylonite but not choleraic is false if it is not a leaf. sent15: the Essene does not furl hairsplitter if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Ceylonite and it is not choleraic is not true. sent16: the immunologist does not sing berth if the fact that the sarong unfastens patriarchy and/or it is incontestable is not correct. sent17: that something is a lurch but it does not furl running is not right if it does not sing berth. sent18: if something is politics that it is not allomerous and it does leaf is not correct. sent19: The hairsplitter does not furl twilight. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: if the twilight is choleraic then it is a Ceylonite.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the twilight is choleraic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic.

If it is choleraic, it is a kind of Ceylonite.

if the twilight does not furl hairsplitter it is choleraic.

the twilight is a Ceylonite.

sent1: the twilight does not furl hairsplitter. sent2: if the allegorizer is not a Ceylonite it is not surmountable. sent3: the hairsplitter is politics if the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae but it is not politics does not hold. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-allomerous a leaf does not hold it does not leaf. sent5: the fact that the sarong either unfastens patriarchy or is not contestable or both does not hold. sent6: if the twilight does not furl hairsplitter it is choleraic. sent7: if something is not allomerous and is not non-politics then it does not leaf. sent8: something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic. sent9: the steamboat is a Ceylonite. sent10: if something is not a kind of a leaf it is not choleraic or it does not furl hairsplitter or both. sent11: that the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae and is not politics does not hold if there is something such that it is not a kind of a teleportation is not incorrect. sent12: the twilight does furl hairsplitter if it does not sing blanketed. sent13: if the fact that the immunologist lurches and does not furl running is false it is not a teleportation. sent14: that something is a Ceylonite but not choleraic is false if it is not a leaf. sent15: the Essene does not furl hairsplitter if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Ceylonite and it is not choleraic is not true. sent16: the immunologist does not sing berth if the fact that the sarong unfastens patriarchy and/or it is incontestable is not correct. sent17: that something is a lurch but it does not furl running is not right if it does not sing berth. sent18: if something is politics that it is not allomerous and it does leaf is not correct. sent19: The hairsplitter does not furl twilight.

{C}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the Essene does not furl hairsplitter hold.

¬{B}{el}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the twilight is a Ceylonite. ; $context$ = sent1: the twilight does not furl hairsplitter. sent2: if the allegorizer is not a Ceylonite it is not surmountable. sent3: the hairsplitter is politics if the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae but it is not politics does not hold. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-allomerous a leaf does not hold it does not leaf. sent5: the fact that the sarong either unfastens patriarchy or is not contestable or both does not hold. sent6: if the twilight does not furl hairsplitter it is choleraic. sent7: if something is not allomerous and is not non-politics then it does not leaf. sent8: something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic. sent9: the steamboat is a Ceylonite. sent10: if something is not a kind of a leaf it is not choleraic or it does not furl hairsplitter or both. sent11: that the fact that the madame unfastens Septobasidiaceae and is not politics does not hold if there is something such that it is not a kind of a teleportation is not incorrect. sent12: the twilight does furl hairsplitter if it does not sing blanketed. sent13: if the fact that the immunologist lurches and does not furl running is false it is not a teleportation. sent14: that something is a Ceylonite but not choleraic is false if it is not a leaf. sent15: the Essene does not furl hairsplitter if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Ceylonite and it is not choleraic is not true. sent16: the immunologist does not sing berth if the fact that the sarong unfastens patriarchy and/or it is incontestable is not correct. sent17: that something is a lurch but it does not furl running is not right if it does not sing berth. sent18: if something is politics that it is not allomerous and it does leaf is not correct. sent19: The hairsplitter does not furl twilight. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: if the twilight is choleraic then it is a Ceylonite.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the twilight is choleraic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of a Ceylonite if it is choleraic.

If it's choleraic, it's a kind of Ceylonite.

the twilight does not furl hairsplitter.

the endogeny happens.

sent1: that the unfastening Portugal does not occur and the singing kind occurs yields that the murmuring does not occur. sent2: either the unfastening sketcher happens or the murmuring occurs or both. sent3: the unfastening Portugal does not occur but the singing kind occurs if the indispensableness happens. sent4: the thwart happens if the behavioristicness happens. sent5: that not the unfastening Latrodectus but the calcifugousness happens leads to that the indispensableness happens. sent6: the singing kind occurs if the murmur happens. sent7: if the singing kind happens then the endogeny occurs. sent8: the unfastening Latrodectus does not occur.

{D}

sent1: (¬{E} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({A} v {B}) sent3: {F} -> (¬{E} & {C}) sent4: {M} -> {L} sent5: (¬{H} & {G}) -> {F} sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: {C} -> {D} sent8: ¬{H}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the endogeny does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the endogeny happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the unfastening Portugal does not occur and the singing kind occurs yields that the murmuring does not occur. sent2: either the unfastening sketcher happens or the murmuring occurs or both. sent3: the unfastening Portugal does not occur but the singing kind occurs if the indispensableness happens. sent4: the thwart happens if the behavioristicness happens. sent5: that not the unfastening Latrodectus but the calcifugousness happens leads to that the indispensableness happens. sent6: the singing kind occurs if the murmur happens. sent7: if the singing kind happens then the endogeny occurs. sent8: the unfastening Latrodectus does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the singing kind happens then the endogeny occurs.

if the singing kind happens then the endogeny occurs.

either the unfastening sketcher happens or the murmuring occurs or both.

the dragonfly does not gestate and is classicistic.

sent1: if the dragonfly is not a kind of a springer and it does not sing angelology then it does not gestate. sent2: the expectorant is a Twin. sent3: something does not gestate and is classicistic if the fact that it does unfasten expectorant does not hold. sent4: that the expectorant does model or it is not a Twin or both is incorrect. sent5: if that the bacteriophage is not a springer is true the expectorant gestates and unfastens expectorant. sent6: if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent7: if the fact that the expectorant does model and/or is a kind of a Twin is not right the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent8: the dragonfly does not gestate.

(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wimp does not unfasten expectorant.

¬{B}{hc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dragonfly does not gestate and is classicistic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dragonfly is not a kind of a springer and it does not sing angelology then it does not gestate. sent2: the expectorant is a Twin. sent3: something does not gestate and is classicistic if the fact that it does unfasten expectorant does not hold. sent4: that the expectorant does model or it is not a Twin or both is incorrect. sent5: if that the bacteriophage is not a springer is true the expectorant gestates and unfastens expectorant. sent6: if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent7: if the fact that the expectorant does model and/or is a kind of a Twin is not right the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent8: the dragonfly does not gestate. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant.; sent3 -> int2: if the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant it does not gestate and it is classicistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant.

The dragonfly doesn't unfasten expectorant if the fact that the expectorant is a model or not is incorrect.

that the expectorant does model or it is not a Twin or both is incorrect.

the dragonfly does not gestate and is classicistic.

sent1: if the dragonfly is not a kind of a springer and it does not sing angelology then it does not gestate. sent2: the expectorant is a Twin. sent3: something does not gestate and is classicistic if the fact that it does unfasten expectorant does not hold. sent4: that the expectorant does model or it is not a Twin or both is incorrect. sent5: if that the bacteriophage is not a springer is true the expectorant gestates and unfastens expectorant. sent6: if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent7: if the fact that the expectorant does model and/or is a kind of a Twin is not right the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent8: the dragonfly does not gestate.

(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wimp does not unfasten expectorant.

¬{B}{hc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dragonfly does not gestate and is classicistic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dragonfly is not a kind of a springer and it does not sing angelology then it does not gestate. sent2: the expectorant is a Twin. sent3: something does not gestate and is classicistic if the fact that it does unfasten expectorant does not hold. sent4: that the expectorant does model or it is not a Twin or both is incorrect. sent5: if that the bacteriophage is not a springer is true the expectorant gestates and unfastens expectorant. sent6: if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent7: if the fact that the expectorant does model and/or is a kind of a Twin is not right the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant. sent8: the dragonfly does not gestate. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant.; sent3 -> int2: if the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant it does not gestate and it is classicistic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the expectorant either is a model or is not a Twin or both is not right then the dragonfly does not unfasten expectorant.

The dragonfly doesn't unfasten expectorant if the model or Twin isn't right.

something does not gestate and is classicistic if the fact that it does unfasten expectorant does not hold.

the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque.

sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque is wrong.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true.

The fact that the illiteracy is bothrepresentational and not Hugoesque is not true.

the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia.

the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque.

sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque is wrong.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true.

The fact that the literate is bothrepresentational and not Hugoesque is not true.

there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right.

the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque.

sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque is wrong.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the illiterate is representational but it is not Hugoesque. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a cluttered and is not a earthtongue. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is a particularism and it is not obstetric is not right. sent3: the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true. sent4: the marc is not a earthtongue and does not root if the illiterate is not a kind of an alexia. sent5: the flagellate does not nestle and it is nonrepresentational. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is both a earthtongue and an alexia is not true. sent7: there is something such that that it is representational and it does root is not true. sent8: if the marc is not a earthtongue then the fact that the illiterate is representational and non-Hugoesque is not true. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the illiterate is not an alexia if the fact that it is both representational and not Hugoesque is not true.

The fact that the illiteracy is bothrepresentational and Hugoesque is not true.

if there is something such that that it is a particularism and is not obstetric is incorrect then the microwave does not clutter.

the napoleon is a kind of a Utopianism.

sent1: that something is not a Protestantism and/or it is not a bronchus is not true if it is not a kind of a galbanum. sent2: the fact that the minefield is a saltpeter does not hold if the ergot is a Sinatra and it is a saltpeter. sent3: the fact that the loophole is both not a decision and a butterwort is not correct. sent4: the minefield is a saltpeter. sent5: if something is not a perceiver then that it is adscript and unfastens cabotage is incorrect. sent6: if the minefield is a saltpeter then the napoleon does scythe napoleon. sent7: the ergot does furl goalkeeper if the fact that either the buffet is not a Protestantism or it is not a bronchus or both does not hold. sent8: the minefield is a kind of a Sinatra if the napoleon furls goalkeeper. sent9: if the minefield is not a saltpeter the fact that it is a Utopianism and it does not scythe napoleon is wrong. sent10: if something that does not scythe napoleon is a saltpeter it is a Utopianism. sent11: if that the ergot does furl goalkeeper hold the napoleon does furl goalkeeper. sent12: the loophole is not a kind of a perceiver if the fact that it is not a decision and it is a butterwort does not hold. sent13: the bedbug does not scythe napoleon. sent14: something does not scythe napoleon and is a kind of a saltpeter if it is a Sinatra.

{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the minefield is a kind of a Utopianism.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the napoleon is a kind of a Utopianism. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a Protestantism and/or it is not a bronchus is not true if it is not a kind of a galbanum. sent2: the fact that the minefield is a saltpeter does not hold if the ergot is a Sinatra and it is a saltpeter. sent3: the fact that the loophole is both not a decision and a butterwort is not correct. sent4: the minefield is a saltpeter. sent5: if something is not a perceiver then that it is adscript and unfastens cabotage is incorrect. sent6: if the minefield is a saltpeter then the napoleon does scythe napoleon. sent7: the ergot does furl goalkeeper if the fact that either the buffet is not a Protestantism or it is not a bronchus or both does not hold. sent8: the minefield is a kind of a Sinatra if the napoleon furls goalkeeper. sent9: if the minefield is not a saltpeter the fact that it is a Utopianism and it does not scythe napoleon is wrong. sent10: if something that does not scythe napoleon is a saltpeter it is a Utopianism. sent11: if that the ergot does furl goalkeeper hold the napoleon does furl goalkeeper. sent12: the loophole is not a kind of a perceiver if the fact that it is not a decision and it is a butterwort does not hold. sent13: the bedbug does not scythe napoleon. sent14: something does not scythe napoleon and is a kind of a saltpeter if it is a Sinatra. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the minefield is a saltpeter then the napoleon does scythe napoleon.

if the minefield is a saltpeter then the napoleon does scythe napoleon.

the minefield is a saltpeter.

the fact that something is a Merton and does furl lambkill is false.

sent1: the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill. sent2: the broadtail is a Merton if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hydroxyproline and it is not a kind of a Merton is not right. sent3: the march twigs if the broadtail twigs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not tricentenary and is a Merton does not hold. sent5: the march is a Joplin and is tricentenary if that it does not furl lambkill hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hydroxyproline and it is not a Merton is not right. sent7: the broadtail is tricentenary if there is something such that it is tricentenary. sent8: that something does furl lambkill is not false.

¬((Ex): ({C}x & {B}x))

sent1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: {AK}{a} -> {AK}{m} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent5: ¬{B}{m} -> ({JK}{m} & {A}{m}) sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the march is a kind of a Joplin and twigs.

({JK}{m} & {AK}{m})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is a Merton and does furl lambkill is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill. sent2: the broadtail is a Merton if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hydroxyproline and it is not a kind of a Merton is not right. sent3: the march twigs if the broadtail twigs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not tricentenary and is a Merton does not hold. sent5: the march is a Joplin and is tricentenary if that it does not furl lambkill hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hydroxyproline and it is not a Merton is not right. sent7: the broadtail is tricentenary if there is something such that it is tricentenary. sent8: that something does furl lambkill is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that the broadtail does furl lambkill is correct.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the broadtail is a Merton.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the broadtail is a Merton and it does furl lambkill.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill.

The broadtail is not furls lambkill.

there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hydroxyproline and it is not a Merton is not right.

the fact that something is a Merton and does furl lambkill is false.

sent1: the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill. sent2: the broadtail is a Merton if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hydroxyproline and it is not a kind of a Merton is not right. sent3: the march twigs if the broadtail twigs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not tricentenary and is a Merton does not hold. sent5: the march is a Joplin and is tricentenary if that it does not furl lambkill hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hydroxyproline and it is not a Merton is not right. sent7: the broadtail is tricentenary if there is something such that it is tricentenary. sent8: that something does furl lambkill is not false.

¬((Ex): ({C}x & {B}x))

sent1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent3: {AK}{a} -> {AK}{m} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) sent5: ¬{B}{m} -> ({JK}{m} & {A}{m}) sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the march is a kind of a Joplin and twigs.

({JK}{m} & {AK}{m})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is a Merton and does furl lambkill is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill. sent2: the broadtail is a Merton if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hydroxyproline and it is not a kind of a Merton is not right. sent3: the march twigs if the broadtail twigs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not tricentenary and is a Merton does not hold. sent5: the march is a Joplin and is tricentenary if that it does not furl lambkill hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hydroxyproline and it is not a Merton is not right. sent7: the broadtail is tricentenary if there is something such that it is tricentenary. sent8: that something does furl lambkill is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that the broadtail does furl lambkill is correct.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the broadtail is a Merton.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the broadtail is a Merton and it does furl lambkill.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the broadtail is not tricentenary and furls lambkill.

The broadtail isn't tricentenary and furls lambkill.

the broadtail is a Merton if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hydroxyproline and it is not a kind of a Merton is not right.

the firebox is a kind of a Ornithischia and it is argentous.

sent1: if the sill is a kind of unfrozen thing that is firmamental the thunderstorm does not furl eight-spot. sent2: The eight-spot does not furl Turk's-cap. sent3: the fact that the firebox is chaste if the firebox is firmamental is not incorrect. sent4: if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false. sent5: the sill is unfrozen and is firmamental. sent6: if something is chaste it is a Ornithischia. sent7: the firebox is firmamental. sent8: the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect. sent9: the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the firebox is a Ornithischia and argentous is not right.

¬({C}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the firebox is a kind of a Ornithischia and it is argentous. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sill is a kind of unfrozen thing that is firmamental the thunderstorm does not furl eight-spot. sent2: The eight-spot does not furl Turk's-cap. sent3: the fact that the firebox is chaste if the firebox is firmamental is not incorrect. sent4: if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false. sent5: the sill is unfrozen and is firmamental. sent6: if something is chaste it is a Ornithischia. sent7: the firebox is firmamental. sent8: the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect. sent9: the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility and/or it is not over-the-counter is incorrect.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the firebox is argentous.; sent6 -> int3: the firebox is a Ornithischia if it is chaste.; sent3 & sent7 -> int4: the firebox is chaste.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the firebox is a Ornithischia.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false.

If the Turk's cap does not furl eight-spot then it either does not scythe inaudibility or is over-the-counter.

the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot.

the firebox is a kind of a Ornithischia and it is argentous.

sent1: if the sill is a kind of unfrozen thing that is firmamental the thunderstorm does not furl eight-spot. sent2: The eight-spot does not furl Turk's-cap. sent3: the fact that the firebox is chaste if the firebox is firmamental is not incorrect. sent4: if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false. sent5: the sill is unfrozen and is firmamental. sent6: if something is chaste it is a Ornithischia. sent7: the firebox is firmamental. sent8: the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect. sent9: the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the firebox is a Ornithischia and argentous is not right.

¬({C}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the firebox is a kind of a Ornithischia and it is argentous. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sill is a kind of unfrozen thing that is firmamental the thunderstorm does not furl eight-spot. sent2: The eight-spot does not furl Turk's-cap. sent3: the fact that the firebox is chaste if the firebox is firmamental is not incorrect. sent4: if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false. sent5: the sill is unfrozen and is firmamental. sent6: if something is chaste it is a Ornithischia. sent7: the firebox is firmamental. sent8: the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect. sent9: the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility and/or it is not over-the-counter is incorrect.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the firebox is argentous.; sent6 -> int3: the firebox is a Ornithischia if it is chaste.; sent3 & sent7 -> int4: the firebox is chaste.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the firebox is a Ornithischia.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false.

If the Turk's cap does not furl eight-spot, then it either does not scythe inaudibility or is over-the-counter.

the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect.

the firebox is a kind of a Ornithischia and it is argentous.

sent1: if the sill is a kind of unfrozen thing that is firmamental the thunderstorm does not furl eight-spot. sent2: The eight-spot does not furl Turk's-cap. sent3: the fact that the firebox is chaste if the firebox is firmamental is not incorrect. sent4: if the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot then that it either does not scythe inaudibility or is not over-the-counter or both is false. sent5: the sill is unfrozen and is firmamental. sent6: if something is chaste it is a Ornithischia. sent7: the firebox is firmamental. sent8: the firebox is argentous if that the Turk's-cap does not scythe inaudibility or it is not over-the-counter or both is incorrect. sent9: the Turk's-cap does not furl eight-spot.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the firebox is a Ornithischia and argentous is not right.

¬({C}{b} & {B}{b})