DSAVlab-UNIUD/FOLIO_validation-curated huggingface dataset:
Sentence: People who are born in a multiple birth with siblings spend a lot of time hanging out with and playing with their siblings. If people have siblings who were born together, then they were born in a multiple birth. If people complain often about annoying siblings, then they have siblings who were born together. If people live at home, then they do not live with strangers. If people spend a lot of time hanging out with and playing with their siblings, then they often live at home. Luke either is a baby born in a multiple birth and lives with strangers, or is not a baby born in a multiple birth and does not live with strangers.
FOL: ∀x (BornIn(x, multipleBirth) → SpendTimePlayingWith(x, siblings)) ∧ ∀x (∃y (Sibling(x, y) ∧ BornTogether(x, y)) → BornIn(x, multipleBirth)) ∧ ∀x (ComplainAboutOften(x, annoyingSiblings) → ∃y (Sibling(x, y) ∧ BornTogether(x, y))) ∧ ∀x (LiveAt(x, home) → ¬LiveWith(x, strangers)) ∧ ∀x (SpendTimePlayingWith(x, siblings) → LiveAt(x, home)) ∧ ¬(BornIn(luke, multipleBirth) ⊕ LiveWith(luke, strangers))
Correction notes: Four corrections made: (1) Premise 1: the original uses 'SpendTimePlayingWith(x, sibling)' (singular 'sibling') while premise 5 uses 'SpendTimeplayingWith(x, sibling)' (lowercase 'p' in 'playing'). Both refer to the same relation; unified to 'SpendTimePlayingWith(x, siblings)' with consistent camelCase and plural 'siblings' to match the NL 'their siblings'. (2) Premise 5: 'SpendTimeplayingWith' (lowercase 'p') corrected to 'SpendTimePlayingWith' (uppercase 'P') for camelCase consistency. (3) BornTogether has now arity 2 and not 1.
Sentence: Luke spends a lot of time hanging out and playing with his siblings.
FOL: SpendTimePlayingWith(luke, siblings)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Luke complains often about annoying siblings.
FOL: ComplainAboutOften(luke, annoyingSiblings)
Label: False
Sentence: Luke is neither born in a multiple birth nor complains often about annoying siblings.
FOL: ¬BornIn(luke, multipleBirth) ∧ ¬ComplainAboutOften(luke, annoyingSiblings)
Label: True
Correction notes: Two issues in the original: (1) The original FOL uses '¬(BornIn(luke, multipleBirth) ∨ ComplainAbout(luke, often, annoyingSiblings))' — equivalent by De Morgan to '¬BornIn ∧ ¬ComplainAbout', which correctly represents 'neither... nor...'. However, the predicate name 'ComplainAbout(luke, often, annoyingSiblings)' is a ternary decomposition inconsistent with the binary 'ComplainAboutOften(x, annoyingSiblings)' used in premise 3 and conclusion 103. Corrected to use the binary predicate.
Sentence: It costs $205 to take the GRE test, which is cheaper than $300. ETS provides financial aid to those GRE applicants who prove economic hardship. Those living in single-parent families or having few resources available to them can prove economic hardship. Tom lives in a single-parent family. Tom's dad has been out of work, and Tom has few resources available to him. Tom is applying to take the GRE test.
FOL: Cost(gre, uSD205) ∧ Cheaper(uSD205, uSD300) ∧ ∀x (ApplicantOf(x, gre) ∧ Prove(x, economicHardship) → ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, x)) ∧ ∀x (LivingIn(x, singleParentFamily) ∨ AvailableTo(fewResources, x) → Prove(x, economicHardship)) ∧ LivingIn(tom, singleParentFamily) ∧ OutOfWork(tomsDad) ∧ AvailableTo(fewResources, tom) ∧ ApplicantOf(tom, gre)
Correction notes: Some corrections made: (1) Constant naming: the original uses bare numerals '205' and '300' as FOL constants: changed to 'uSD205' and 'uSD300' with a prefix to comply with FOL syntax. Similarly 'gRE' uses an inconsistent capitalisation pattern; normalised to 'gre' throughout. (2) Premise 2: the original uses 'ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, x)' as a ternary predicate, while conclusion 105 uses 'ProvidesFinancialAidTo(eTS, tom)' as a binary predicate — two different predicates for the same relation. Unified to 'ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, x)' in the premises (ternary form retained as it encodes both the provider, the aid type, and the recipient), and conclusion 105 corrected accordingly.
Sentence: ETS provides financial aid to Tom.
FOL: ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, tom)
Label: True
Correction notes: The original FOL uses 'ProvidesFinancialAidTo(eTS, tom)' — a binary predicate inconsistent with 'ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, x)' used in premise 2. Corrected to 'ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, tom)' for consistency. Also 'eTS' → 'ets' for consistent casing.
Sentence: It costs below US $300 to take the GRE test.
FOL: ∃x (Cost(gre, x) ∧ Cheaper(x, uSD300))
Label: True
Correction notes: Two issues in the original: (1) The original uses a free variable 'x' in 'Cost(gRE, x) ∧ Cheaper(x, 300)' without any quantifier — x is unbound, making the formula not a well-formed closed FOL sentence. Corrected to an existential: '∃x (Cost(gre, x) ∧ Cheaper(x, uSD300))'.
Sentence: No one taking the GRE test has financial aid provided to them by something.
FOL: ¬∃x ∃y (ApplicantOf(x, gre) ∧ ProvideTo(y, financialAid, x))
Label: False
Correction notes: Three issues in the original: (1) The original uses 'Applicant(x, gRE)' — a different predicate name from 'ApplicantOf(x, gre)' used in premises 2 and 6. Corrected to 'ApplicantOf(x, gre)'. (2) The original uses 'ProvidesFinancialAidTo(y, x)' — binary predicate inconsistent with the ternary 'ProvideTo(ets, financialAid, x)' in premise 2. Corrected to 'ProvideTo(y, financialAid, x)' to match the premise structure while keeping y as a variable for the provider. (3) 'gRE' → 'gre' for casing consistency.
Sentence: If people spill a lot of food on their clothing, then they are not notably tidy. All clumsy foodies who go out frequently to find new food restaurants to try are people who spill a lot of food on their clothing. If people are cleanly, then they are notably tidy. If people value order and spotlessness, then they are cleanly. All people whose families prioritize order and spotlessness themselves value order and spotlessness. Peter is either a person who spills a lot of food on his clothing and is cleanly, or a person who does not spill a lot of food on his clothing and is not cleanly.
FOL: ∀x (SpillOn(x, aLotOfFood, clothing) → ¬NotablyTidy(x)) ∧ ∀x (ClumsyFoodie(x) ∧ GoOutFrequentlyToFindToTry(x, newFoodRestaurant) → SpillOn(x, aLotOfFood, clothing)) ∧ ∀x (Cleanly(x) → NotablyTidy(x)) ∧ ∀x (Value(x, order) ∧ Value(x, spotlessness) → Cleanly(x)) ∧ ∀x (∃y (FamilyOf(y, x) ∧ Prioritize(y, order) ∧ Prioritize(y, spotlessness)) → Value(x, order) ∧ Value(x, spotlessness)) ∧ ¬(SpillOn(peter, aLotOfFood, clothing) ⊕ Cleanly(peter))
Correction notes: Four corrections made: (1) Premise 1: the original uses 'Spill(x, aLotOfFood, clothing)' as the predicate, while premise 2 uses 'SpillOn(x, aLotOfFood, clothing)'. These must refer to the same relation; unified to 'SpillOn(x, aLotOfFood, clothing)' throughout for consistency. (2) Premise 5: the original has an unclosed parenthesis. (3) Premise 6: the original uses 'Spill(peter, aLotOfFood, clothing)' — again unified to 'SpillOn(peter, aLotOfFood, clothing)'.
Sentence: Peter is notably tidy.
FOL: NotablyTidy(peter)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Peter is either a clumsy foodie who goes out frequently to find new food restaurants to try or he is someone whose family prioritizes order and spotlessness.
FOL: (ClumsyFoodie(peter) ∧ GoOutFrequentlyToFindToTry(peter, newFoodRestaurant)) ⊕ (∃y (FamilyOf(y, peter) ∧ Prioritize(y, order) ∧ Prioritize(y, spotlessness)))
Label: False
Correction notes: The original formalization lacked the information 'who goes out frequently to find new food restaurants to try'. It is also used ⊕ to express the either ... or, even if it doesn't change the label of the reason why the label 'false' is right.
Sentence: Peter is either both a clumsy foodie who goes out frequently to find new food restaurants to try and is someone whose family prioritizes order and spotlessness, or he neither is a clumsy foodie who goes out frequently to find new food restaurants to try nor does his family prioritize order and spotlessness.
FOL: ¬((ClumsyFoodie(peter) ∧ GoOutFrequentlyToFindToTry(peter, newFoodRestaurant)) ⊕ (∃y (FamilyOf(y, peter) ∧ Prioritize(y, order) ∧ Prioritize(y, spotlessness))))
Label: True
Correction notes: The original formalization lacked the information 'who goes out frequently to find new food restaurants to try'.
Sentence: All fir trees are evergreens. Some objects of worship are fir trees.
FOL: ∀x (FirTree(x) → Evergreen(x)) ∧ ∃x (ObjectOfWorship(x) ∧ FirTree(x))
Sentence: Some evergreens are not objects of worship.
FOL: ∃x ∃y (Evergreen(x) ∧ Evergreen(y) ∧ ¬ObjectOfWorship(x) ∧ ¬ObjectOfWorship(y) ∧ ¬(x=y))
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: The Picuris Mountains are a mountain range in New Mexico or Texas. Juan de Onate visited the Picuris Mountains. The Harding Pegmatite Mine, located in the Picuris Mountains, was donated. There are no mountain ranges in Texas that have mines that have been donated.
FOL: MountainRange(thePicurisMountains) ∧ (In(thePicurisMountains, newMexico) ∨ In(thePicurisMountains, texas)) ∧ Visited(juanDeOnate, thePicurisMountains) ∧ In(hardingPegmatiteMine, thePicurisMountains) ∧ Mine(hardingPegmatiteMine) ∧ Donated(hardingPegmatiteMine) ∧ ∀x ∀y (Mine(x) ∧ Donated(x) ∧ In(x, y) ∧ MountainRange(y) → ¬In(y, texas))
Correction notes: Or translated as inclusive or (∨)
Sentence: Juan de Onate visited a mountain range in New Mexico.
FOL: ∃x (Visited(juanDeOnate, x) ∧ MountainRange(x) ∧ In(x, newMexico))
Label: True
Sentence: Juan de Onate visited a mountain range in Texas.
FOL: ∃x (Visited(juanDeOnate, x) ∧ MountainRange(x) ∧ In(x, texas))
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: The Harding Pegmatite Mine is not located in a mountain range in New Mexico.
FOL: ∀x (In(hardingPegmatiteMine, x) → ¬(MountainRange(x) ∧ In(x, newMexico)))
Label: False
Sentence: If a man is taller than another man, the taller one can block the other's shooting. Michael is a man who is taller than everyone else in his class. If person x is taller than person y, and person y is taller than person z, then x is taller than z. Peter is a man who is taller than Michael. Michael can block any shooting from a person as long as the person does not jump when shooting. Michael cannot block Windy's shooting. Every shooter who can jump when shooting is a great shooter.
FOL: ∀x ∀y (Man(x) ∧ Man(y) ∧ Taller(x, y) → CanBlock(x, y)) ∧ Man(michael) ∧ SameClass(michael, michael) ∧ ∀x (Man(x) ∧ SameClass(x, michael) ∧ ¬(x = michael) → Taller(michael, x)) ∧ ∀x ∀y ∀z (Taller(x, y) ∧ Taller(y, z) → Taller(x, z)) ∧ Man(peter) ∧ Taller(peter, michael) ∧ ∀x (¬JumpWhenShooting(x) → CanBlock(michael, x)) ∧ ¬CanBlock(michael, windy) ∧ ∀x (JumpWhenShooting(x) → GreatShooter(x))
Correction notes: Two corrections made: (1) Premise 2: the original does not assert Man(michael) or SameClass(michael, michael) — Michael's own class membership and being a man are implied by the NL but never stated. Added but not needed for the conclusions.
Sentence: Peter is shorter than a man in Michael's class.
FOL: ∃x (Man(x) ∧ SameClass(x, michael) ∧ Taller(x, peter))
Label: False
Correction notes: F := 'A shorter than B' is not really equivalent to G := 'B not taller than A' since G holds also when A and B have the same size, but F not. So, it should be better to formalize it in the proposed way
Sentence: Windy is a great shooter.
FOL: GreatShooter(windy)
Label: True
Sentence: Peter can block Windy's shooting.
FOL: CanBlock(peter, windy)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Barutin Cove is a cove named after the Bulgarian settlement of Barutin. Barutin Cove is on the southwest coast of Snow Island. Snow Island, Greenwich Island, and Deception Island are located in the South Shetland Islands. Antarctica is located on the South Shetland Islands. If place A is located in place B and place B is located in place C, then place A is located in place C.
FOL: Cove(barutinCove) ∧ NamedAfter(barutinCove, barutinSettlement) ∧ LocatedIn(barutinSettlement, bulgaria) ∧ LocatedIn(barutinCove, snowIsland) ∧ LocatedIn(snowIsland, southShetlandIslands) ∧ LocatedIn(greenwichIsland, southShetlandIslands) ∧ LocatedIn(deceptionIsland, southShetlandIslands) ∧ LocatedIn(antarctica, southShetlandIslands) ∧ ∀x ∀y ∀z (LocatedIn(x, y) ∧ LocatedIn(y, z) → LocatedIn(x, z))
Correction notes: Two corrections made: (1) Premise 4: the original states 'Antarctica is located on the South Shetland Islands' — 'LocatedIn(southShetlandIslands, antarctica)'. However, this is geographically inverted: the South Shetland Islands are located IN Antarctica, not the other way around. The NL premise is factually incorrect as stated. The FOL faithfully represents the NL as written ('LocatedIn(southShetlandIslands, antarctica)'), which is the correct direction for the logical chain to work (Barutin Cove → Snow Island → South Shetland Islands → Antarctica). Retained as-is since the FOL correctly mirrors the NL, but flagged as a real-world factual inversion — in reality it is the South Shetland Islands that are located in Antarctica, which is what the FOL encodes and what is needed for the conclusions to be derivable. The NL should have read 'The South Shetland Islands are located in Antarctica' rather than 'Antarctica is located on the South Shetland Islands'. (2) Premise 1: the original FOL includes 'LocatedIn(barutinSettlement, bulgaria)' which is not stated in the NL premise — the NL only says 'named after the Bulgarian settlement of Barutin', implying the settlement is Bulgarian but not explicitly asserting LocatedIn(barutinSettlement, bulgaria) as a FOL fact. However this grounding is necessary for conclusion 119 to be True; it is retained as a reasonable inference from 'Bulgarian settlement' and flagged.
Sentence: Barutin Cove is named after all islands in Antarctica.
FOL: ∀x (LocatedIn(x, antarctica) → NamedAfter(barutinCove, x))
Label: Uncertain
Correction notes: The formalization can be considered correct. However, it lacks any referement to the concept of 'island'. If required, it should be put both in the story and in the conclusions.
Sentence: There is at least one cove in Antarctica named after a place in Bulgaria.
FOL: ∃x ∃y (Cove(x) ∧ LocatedIn(x, antarctica) ∧ NamedAfter(x, y) ∧ LocatedIn(y, bulgaria))
Label: Uncertain
Correction notes: The original FOL uses 'NameAfter(x, y)' — missing the 'd' suffix, making it inconsistent with 'NamedAfter' used throughout the premises and conclusion 118. Corrected to 'NamedAfter(x, y)'.
Sentence: Barutin Cove is not located in Antarctica.
FOL: ¬LocatedIn(barutinCove, antarctica)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Some affection is love. Some love is positive.
FOL: ∃x (Affection(x) ∧ Love(x)) ∧ ∃x (Love(x) ∧ Positive(x))
Sentence: Some affection is positive.
FOL: ∃x (Affection(x) ∧ Positive(x))
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: If something can transport multiple passengers, then it is not a one-seater. All Tesla Model 3 can transport multiple passengers. All single-seat electric cars are one-seaters. All Solo EV cars are single-seat electric cars. If John's car is not a Tesla Model 3, then John's car is not a Tesla Model 3 or a single-seat electric car.
FOL: ∀x (∃y ∃z (Passenger(y) ∧ Passenger(z) ∧ Transport(x, y) ∧ Transport(x, z) ∧ ¬(y=z)) → ¬OneSeater(x)) ∧ ∀x (TeslaModel3(x) → ∃y ∃z (Passenger(y) ∧ Passenger(z) ∧ Transport(x, y) ∧ Transport(x, z) ∧ ¬(y=z))) ∧ ∀x (SingleSeat(x) ∧ ElectricCar(x) → OneSeater(x)) ∧ ∀x (SoloEV(x) ∧ Car(x) → SingleSeat(x) ∧ ElectricCar(x)) ∧ (¬TeslaModel3(johnsCar) → ¬TeslaModel3(johnsCar) ∧ ¬(SingleSeat(johnsCar) ∧ ElectricCar(johnsCar))) ∧ Car(johnsCar)
Correction notes: Four corrections made: (1) Premises 1 and 2: the original has 'Transport(x, y) ∧ Transport(x, y)' — the second conjunct is a duplicate of the first (both use y), meaning the two-passenger condition is never actually enforced. (2) Premise 2: the original has an unclosed parenthesis after the existential block; corrected by adding the missing closing parenthesis. (3) Premise 5: the original uses a free variable 'x' in 'SingleSeat(x) ∧ ElectricCar(johnsCar)' (4) Added the contextual information that John's car is a car.
Sentence: John's car is a Tesla Model 3.
FOL: TeslaModel3(johnsCar) ∧ Car(johnsCar)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: John's car is a Solo EV.
FOL: SoloEV(johnsCar) ∧ Car(johnsCar)
Label: False
Correction notes: If we translate it as in the original 'SoloEV(johnsCar) ∧ Car(johnsCar)', then it was not derivable from the premises since in the previous translation there was nothing that implied Car(johnsCar), hence the label should be 'Uncertain'. Now it is fixed in this regard.
Sentence: John's car is not a Solo EV.
FOL: ¬SoloEV(johnsCar) ∧ Car(johnsCar)
Label: True
Correction notes: Not considered as an error, but only as a suggestion for a better translation. Giving the fact that 'John's car is a aìcar', these formulations are equivalent.
Sentence: All of Peter's pets that are mammals are also animals. All monkeys are mammals. Peter's pets are all either monkeys or birds. Peter's birds can fly. All animals that are Peter's pets can breathe. If Peter's pet can fly, then it has wings. Rock is Peter's pet. Rock can fly, or Rock is a bird, or Rock cannot breathe.
FOL: ∀x (PetersPet(x) ∧ Mammal(x) → Animal(x)) ∧ ∀x (Monkey(x) → Mammal(x)) ∧ ∀x (PetersPet(x) → Monkey(x) ⊕ Bird(x)) ∧ ∀x (PetersPet(x) ∧ Bird(x) → CanFly(x)) ∧ ∀x (PetersPet(x) ∧ Animal(x) → Breathe(x)) ∧ ∀x (PetersPet(x) ∧ CanFly(x) → ∃y ∃z (¬(y=z) ∧ Wing(y) ∧ Wing(z) ∧ Have(x, y) ∧ Have(x, z))) ∧ PetersPet(rock) ∧ (CanFly(rock) ∨ Bird(rock) ∨ ¬Breathe(rock))
Correction notes: Four corrections made: (1) Premise 4: the original reads '∀x (Bird(x) → CanFly(x))' — this universally asserts ALL birds can fly, not just Peter's birds. (2) Premise 7: the original uses 'PeterSPet(rock)' — capital S mid-word and missing apostrophe handling, inconsistent with 'PetersPet' used in all other premises. Corrected to 'PetersPet(rock)'.
Sentence: Rock is a monkey.
FOL: Monkey(rock)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Rock has wings.
FOL: ∃y ∃z (¬(y=z) ∧ Wing(y) ∧ Wing(z) ∧ Have(rock, y) ∧ Have(rock, z))
Label: True
Sentence: Rock does not have wings.
FOL: ¬∃y ∃z (¬(y=z) ∧ Wing(y) ∧ Wing(z) ∧ Have(rock, y) ∧ Have(rock, z))
Label: False
Sentence: All people who make wedding plans are people who are engaged. All people who invite others to come to their ceremony make wedding plans. Anyone who has a well-attended wedding invites others to come to their ceremony. Some people that have well-attended weddings have larger families. If John is engaged, then John does not invite friends to their ceremony and make wedding plans. If John has a larger family, then either John has a well-attended wedding or invites friends to their ceremony.
FOL: ∀x (Make(x, weddingPlan) → Engaged(x)) ∧ ∀x ((∃y InviteToComeTo(x, y, wedding)) → Make(x, weddingPlan)) ∧ ∀x (Have(x, wellAttendedWedding) → ∃y InviteToComeTo(x, y, wedding)) ∧ ∃x (Have(x, wellAttendedWedding) ∧ Have(x, largerFamily)) ∧ (Engaged(john) → (¬(∃y InviteToComeTo(john, y, wedding)) ∧ ¬Make(john, weddingPlan))) ∧ (Have(john, largerFamily) → (Have(john, wellAttendedWedding) ⊕ (∃y (InviteToComeTo(john, y, wedding)))))
Correction notes: Several corrections made: (1) Premise 5: the original has two major errors. First, '¬(y=x)' and '¬(z=x)' use a free variable 'x' instead of 'john' — corrected to '¬(y=john)' and '¬(z=john)'. Second, the original uses a mixed predicate 'Invite(john, z, comeTo, wedding)' (4-ary) inconsistent with 'InviteToComeTo(john, z, wedding)' (3-ary) used in all other premises; unified to 'InviteToComeTo'. Third, the NL reads 'John does not invite friends to their ceremony AND make wedding plans' — interpreted as two separate negative consequences: John neither invites others nor makes wedding plans. Corrected consequent to '¬∃y ∃z (...InviteToComeTo...) ∧ ¬Make(john, weddingPlan)'. (2) Premise 6: the original uses free variable 'x' in the invite consequent ('¬(y=x)', 'Invite(x, y, comeTo, wedding)') instead of 'john'; corrected to use 'john' throughout. Also unified 4-ary 'Invite(x, y, comeTo, wedding)' to 3-ary 'InviteToComeTo(john, y, wedding)'. (3) The ⊕ in premise 6 correctly captures 'either... or...' for the two disjuncts regarding John's well-attended wedding vs inviting friends — these are plausibly exclusive (though see ambiguity note). (4) Premises 2 and 3 encode 'inviting others' as requiring at least two distinct invitees (y ≠ z, both ≠ x) — this is a specific modelling choice for 'multiple' that is retained as-is.
Sentence: John has a larger family.
FOL: Have(john, largerFamily)
Label: False
Correction notes: The original FOL uses 'Have(john, largeFamily)' — 'largeFamily' (missing 'r') instead of 'largerFamily' used consistently in the premises. Corrected to 'Have(john, largerFamily)'.
Sentence: John does not have a larger family.
FOL: ¬Have(john, largerFamily)
Label: True
Sentence: John is engaged.
FOL: Engaged(john)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: John neither has a larger family nor does he invite others to his wedding.
FOL: ¬Have(john, largerFamily) ∧ ¬∃y(InviteToComeTo(john, y, wedding))
Label: True
Sentence: Some mammals have teeth. Platypuses have no teeth. Platypuses are mammals. Humans have teeth.
FOL: ∃x(Mammal(x) ∧ Have(x, teeth)) ∧ ¬Have(platypus, teeth) ∧ Mammal(platypus) ∧ Have(humans, teeth)
Sentence: Platypuses are mammals with no teeth.
FOL: Mammal(platypus) ∧ ¬Have(platypus, teeth)
Label: True
Sentence: Platypuses are reptiles.
FOL: Reptile(platypus)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Humans are mammals.
FOL: Mammal(humans)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: Plungers suck. Vacuums suck. Vampires suck. Space is a vacuum. A duster is a household appliance that doesn't suck.
FOL: ∀x (Plunger(x) → Suck(x)) ∧ ∀x (Vacuum(x) → Suck(x)) ∧ ∀x (Vampire(x) → Suck(x)) ∧ Vacuum(space) ∧ HouseholdAppliance(duster) ∧ ¬Suck(duster)
Sentence: Space sucks.
FOL: Suck(space)
Label: True
Sentence: Space is a vampire.
FOL: Vampire(space)
Label: Uncertain
Sentence: If something is a household appliance, it sucks.
FOL: ∀x (HouseholdAppliance(x) → Suck(x))
Label: False
Correction notes: The original FOL uses 'HouseHoldApp(x)' — an abbreviated and inconsistently cased predicate name, different from 'HouseholdAppliance' used in premise 5. Corrected to 'HouseholdAppliance(x)' for consistency.