Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the loir is a cosmology.

sent1: if a non-manual thing is a kind of a Sphinx it is not nonretractile. sent2: if the loir is nonretractile that it is a cosmology is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is a pterosaur. sent4: something that is not a Sphinx is a kind of a pterosaur that is nonretractile. sent5: the loir is nonretractile if something is a pterosaur. sent6: if something is a pterosaur then it is a kind of a cosmology.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the singer is a cosmology hold.

{C}{gq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the loir is a cosmology. ; $context$ = sent1: if a non-manual thing is a kind of a Sphinx it is not nonretractile. sent2: if the loir is nonretractile that it is a cosmology is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is a pterosaur. sent4: something that is not a Sphinx is a kind of a pterosaur that is nonretractile. sent5: the loir is nonretractile if something is a pterosaur. sent6: if something is a pterosaur then it is a kind of a cosmology. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the loir is nonretractile.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a pterosaur.

There is a pterosaur that exists.

the loir is nonretractile if something is a pterosaur.

the loir is a cosmology.

sent1: if a non-manual thing is a kind of a Sphinx it is not nonretractile. sent2: if the loir is nonretractile that it is a cosmology is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is a pterosaur. sent4: something that is not a Sphinx is a kind of a pterosaur that is nonretractile. sent5: the loir is nonretractile if something is a pterosaur. sent6: if something is a pterosaur then it is a kind of a cosmology.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the singer is a cosmology hold.

{C}{gq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the loir is a cosmology. ; $context$ = sent1: if a non-manual thing is a kind of a Sphinx it is not nonretractile. sent2: if the loir is nonretractile that it is a cosmology is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is a pterosaur. sent4: something that is not a Sphinx is a kind of a pterosaur that is nonretractile. sent5: the loir is nonretractile if something is a pterosaur. sent6: if something is a pterosaur then it is a kind of a cosmology. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the loir is nonretractile.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a pterosaur.

There is something that is a pterosaur.

if the loir is nonretractile that it is a cosmology is not incorrect.

the stalking-horse does steep grinder.

sent1: the stalking-horse is a salmonid. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is a Maja and it keratinizes Megaera is not right then the stalking-horse is a mews. sent3: the pathogen steeps grinder if there exists something such that that it bitts tapotement and crams is not true. sent4: the domino does steep grinder. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is both a mews and a salmonid is not right. sent6: the stalking-horse does steep grinder if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a mews and is a salmonid is not right.

{A}{a}

sent1: {AB}{a} sent2: (x): ¬({BI}x & {HQ}x) -> {AA}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({BJ}x & {HP}x) -> {A}{dk} sent4: {A}{cr} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the stalking-horse does steep grinder. ; $context$ = sent1: the stalking-horse is a salmonid. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is a Maja and it keratinizes Megaera is not right then the stalking-horse is a mews. sent3: the pathogen steeps grinder if there exists something such that that it bitts tapotement and crams is not true. sent4: the domino does steep grinder. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is both a mews and a salmonid is not right. sent6: the stalking-horse does steep grinder if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a mews and is a salmonid is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is both a mews and a salmonid is not right.

there is something such that the fact that it is both a mews and a salmonid is not right.

the stalking-horse does steep grinder if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a mews and is a salmonid is not right.

the fact that the hairbrush is a burglary is true.

sent1: something is a DOS. sent2: the hairbrush is a stance if there is something such that it is a burglary. sent3: if the hairbrush is a kind of a burglary then the absorber does overbalance. sent4: the hairbrush is a stance if the absorber is a burglary. sent5: the absorber is a stance if something is a DOS. sent6: the fact that the absorber is a burglary is correct if there exists something such that it is a stance. sent7: the fullerene bitts pony. sent8: the absorber is a kind of a stance if there is something such that it is a kind of a burglary. sent9: the hairbrush is a burglary if the absorber is a stance. sent10: that the hairbrush keratinizes voyeurism hold. sent11: if the hairbrush is a stance then the absorber is a burglary.

{C}{b}

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}{b} sent3: {C}{b} -> {CE}{a} sent4: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: {IP}{gs} sent8: (x): {C}x -> {B}{a} sent9: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: {FU}{b} sent11: {B}{b} -> {C}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hairbrush is a burglary is true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a DOS. sent2: the hairbrush is a stance if there is something such that it is a burglary. sent3: if the hairbrush is a kind of a burglary then the absorber does overbalance. sent4: the hairbrush is a stance if the absorber is a burglary. sent5: the absorber is a stance if something is a DOS. sent6: the fact that the absorber is a burglary is correct if there exists something such that it is a stance. sent7: the fullerene bitts pony. sent8: the absorber is a kind of a stance if there is something such that it is a kind of a burglary. sent9: the hairbrush is a burglary if the absorber is a stance. sent10: that the hairbrush keratinizes voyeurism hold. sent11: if the hairbrush is a stance then the absorber is a burglary. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the absorber is a stance.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a DOS.

Something is a program.

the absorber is a stance if something is a DOS.

the fact that the hairbrush is a burglary is true.

sent1: something is a DOS. sent2: the hairbrush is a stance if there is something such that it is a burglary. sent3: if the hairbrush is a kind of a burglary then the absorber does overbalance. sent4: the hairbrush is a stance if the absorber is a burglary. sent5: the absorber is a stance if something is a DOS. sent6: the fact that the absorber is a burglary is correct if there exists something such that it is a stance. sent7: the fullerene bitts pony. sent8: the absorber is a kind of a stance if there is something such that it is a kind of a burglary. sent9: the hairbrush is a burglary if the absorber is a stance. sent10: that the hairbrush keratinizes voyeurism hold. sent11: if the hairbrush is a stance then the absorber is a burglary.

{C}{b}

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}{b} sent3: {C}{b} -> {CE}{a} sent4: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: {IP}{gs} sent8: (x): {C}x -> {B}{a} sent9: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: {FU}{b} sent11: {B}{b} -> {C}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hairbrush is a burglary is true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a DOS. sent2: the hairbrush is a stance if there is something such that it is a burglary. sent3: if the hairbrush is a kind of a burglary then the absorber does overbalance. sent4: the hairbrush is a stance if the absorber is a burglary. sent5: the absorber is a stance if something is a DOS. sent6: the fact that the absorber is a burglary is correct if there exists something such that it is a stance. sent7: the fullerene bitts pony. sent8: the absorber is a kind of a stance if there is something such that it is a kind of a burglary. sent9: the hairbrush is a burglary if the absorber is a stance. sent10: that the hairbrush keratinizes voyeurism hold. sent11: if the hairbrush is a stance then the absorber is a burglary. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the absorber is a stance.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a DOS.

Something is a computer program.

the hairbrush is a burglary if the absorber is a stance.

the commune keratinizes acromion.

sent1: the commune is shrinkable. sent2: the commune is not unshrinkable if it is less. sent3: if that the acromion keratinizes acromion and it is less is not right the commune does not keratinizes acromion. sent4: there is something such that that it is a restfulness and it does not direct is not right. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a restfulness and it is not directing. sent6: something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat if it is less. sent7: if something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat it does keratinize acromion.

{B}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the commune does not keratinize acromion.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commune keratinizes acromion. ; $context$ = sent1: the commune is shrinkable. sent2: the commune is not unshrinkable if it is less. sent3: if that the acromion keratinizes acromion and it is less is not right the commune does not keratinizes acromion. sent4: there is something such that that it is a restfulness and it does not direct is not right. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of a restfulness and it is not directing. sent6: something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat if it is less. sent7: if something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat it does keratinize acromion. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat if it is less.

something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat if it is less.

if something is non-unshrinkable thing that is not a squat it does keratinize acromion.

that the Chicano is a Maalox is right.

sent1: if something does not acculturate the fact that the recruiter does not bitt Brahmi but it does acculturate is incorrect. sent2: if something does steep Nubian it is future. sent3: something does bitt fireplug if it does aspirate. sent4: something is non-bignoniaceous if it is not a heroics. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Senora that the Chicano is non-bignoniaceous thing that is a damn is not correct. sent6: something does steep Nubian if it does bitt Brahmi. sent7: the fact that if the recruiter either is heroics or is future or both then the tachylite is not a kind of a heroics is true. sent8: the fact that the lorry is a kind of a damn that is a kind of a Senora is not true if the tachylite is not bignoniaceous. sent9: the fireplug is a kind of a Senora. sent10: that that the Chicano is bignoniaceous and it is a kind of a damn is right does not hold. sent11: if that something does not bitt Brahmi and acculturates does not hold then it bitt Brahmi. sent12: there exists something such that it does not acculturate. sent13: something is a kind of a Maalox if it is a heroics. sent14: if the Chicano is bignoniaceous then it is a kind of a heroics. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of a mouthbreeder but it does engender does not hold it does steep intaglio.

{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Chicano is not a Maalox.

¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Chicano is a Maalox is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not acculturate the fact that the recruiter does not bitt Brahmi but it does acculturate is incorrect. sent2: if something does steep Nubian it is future. sent3: something does bitt fireplug if it does aspirate. sent4: something is non-bignoniaceous if it is not a heroics. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Senora that the Chicano is non-bignoniaceous thing that is a damn is not correct. sent6: something does steep Nubian if it does bitt Brahmi. sent7: the fact that if the recruiter either is heroics or is future or both then the tachylite is not a kind of a heroics is true. sent8: the fact that the lorry is a kind of a damn that is a kind of a Senora is not true if the tachylite is not bignoniaceous. sent9: the fireplug is a kind of a Senora. sent10: that that the Chicano is bignoniaceous and it is a kind of a damn is right does not hold. sent11: if that something does not bitt Brahmi and acculturates does not hold then it bitt Brahmi. sent12: there exists something such that it does not acculturate. sent13: something is a kind of a Maalox if it is a heroics. sent14: if the Chicano is bignoniaceous then it is a kind of a heroics. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of a mouthbreeder but it does engender does not hold it does steep intaglio. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fireplug is a kind of a Senora.

A Senora is a fireplug.

if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Senora that the Chicano is non-bignoniaceous thing that is a damn is not correct.

that the Chicano is a Maalox is right.

sent1: if something does not acculturate the fact that the recruiter does not bitt Brahmi but it does acculturate is incorrect. sent2: if something does steep Nubian it is future. sent3: something does bitt fireplug if it does aspirate. sent4: something is non-bignoniaceous if it is not a heroics. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Senora that the Chicano is non-bignoniaceous thing that is a damn is not correct. sent6: something does steep Nubian if it does bitt Brahmi. sent7: the fact that if the recruiter either is heroics or is future or both then the tachylite is not a kind of a heroics is true. sent8: the fact that the lorry is a kind of a damn that is a kind of a Senora is not true if the tachylite is not bignoniaceous. sent9: the fireplug is a kind of a Senora. sent10: that that the Chicano is bignoniaceous and it is a kind of a damn is right does not hold. sent11: if that something does not bitt Brahmi and acculturates does not hold then it bitt Brahmi. sent12: there exists something such that it does not acculturate. sent13: something is a kind of a Maalox if it is a heroics. sent14: if the Chicano is bignoniaceous then it is a kind of a heroics. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of a mouthbreeder but it does engender does not hold it does steep intaglio.

{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Chicano is not a Maalox.

¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Chicano is a Maalox is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not acculturate the fact that the recruiter does not bitt Brahmi but it does acculturate is incorrect. sent2: if something does steep Nubian it is future. sent3: something does bitt fireplug if it does aspirate. sent4: something is non-bignoniaceous if it is not a heroics. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Senora that the Chicano is non-bignoniaceous thing that is a damn is not correct. sent6: something does steep Nubian if it does bitt Brahmi. sent7: the fact that if the recruiter either is heroics or is future or both then the tachylite is not a kind of a heroics is true. sent8: the fact that the lorry is a kind of a damn that is a kind of a Senora is not true if the tachylite is not bignoniaceous. sent9: the fireplug is a kind of a Senora. sent10: that that the Chicano is bignoniaceous and it is a kind of a damn is right does not hold. sent11: if that something does not bitt Brahmi and acculturates does not hold then it bitt Brahmi. sent12: there exists something such that it does not acculturate. sent13: something is a kind of a Maalox if it is a heroics. sent14: if the Chicano is bignoniaceous then it is a kind of a heroics. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of a mouthbreeder but it does engender does not hold it does steep intaglio. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fireplug is a kind of a Senora.

The fireplug is similar to a Senora.

something is a kind of a Maalox if it is a heroics.

the lunger does not steep posed.

sent1: if the fact that something does not steep advance and is ictal is wrong it does not steep posed. sent2: if the lunger does steep advance then it does not steep posed. sent3: if the pompon does not keratinize rollerblader the fact that the slump does not keratinize entablature and does freeze headliner is wrong. sent4: the flannelbush is not viscometric if that it is viscometric and it is a nonpartisan is false. sent5: if something steeps advance it does not steep posed. sent6: that the lunger does not steep advance and is ictal is incorrect. sent7: that the flannelbush is not non-viscometric and it is a nonpartisan is not true.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HU}{bh} & {GU}{bh}) sent4: ¬({E}{d} & {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent5: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬({E}{d} & {G}{d})

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that the slump does not keratinize entablature and does freeze headliner is not correct is true.

¬(¬{HU}{bh} & {GU}{bh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lunger does not steep posed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not steep advance and is ictal is wrong it does not steep posed. sent2: if the lunger does steep advance then it does not steep posed. sent3: if the pompon does not keratinize rollerblader the fact that the slump does not keratinize entablature and does freeze headliner is wrong. sent4: the flannelbush is not viscometric if that it is viscometric and it is a nonpartisan is false. sent5: if something steeps advance it does not steep posed. sent6: that the lunger does not steep advance and is ictal is incorrect. sent7: that the flannelbush is not non-viscometric and it is a nonpartisan is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the lunger does not steep posed if that it does not steep advance and is ictal does not hold.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something does not steep advance and is ictal is wrong it does not steep posed.

if the fact that something does not steep advance and is ictal is wrong it does not steep posed.

that the lunger does not steep advance and is ictal is incorrect.

the fact that the buckle is maximal is not wrong.

sent1: if something is not Falstaffian it is configurational and it does supplicate. sent2: the buckle does not freeze bureaucracy. sent3: if something is a micrometer the fact that it is not tearful and not a seismologist does not hold. sent4: the capital is not Falstaffian. sent5: the buckle is maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy if the nip is not maximal. sent6: something that does steep scrimshanker is non-maximal thing that does freeze bureaucracy. sent7: if the nip steeps scrimshanker that the buckle steeps scrimshanker hold. sent8: the ormer is a micrometer if there exists something such that it is configurational thing that does supplicate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct. sent10: the fact that if that the self-portrait is a yawl is right the nip does steep scrimshanker or it is not uncivil or both is not wrong. sent11: the self-portrait is a yawl if there is something such that the fact that it is not tearful and it is not a seismologist is false. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is rotational and it is not relevant is not true the nip is not maximal.

{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the buckle is not maximal.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the buckle is maximal is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not Falstaffian it is configurational and it does supplicate. sent2: the buckle does not freeze bureaucracy. sent3: if something is a micrometer the fact that it is not tearful and not a seismologist does not hold. sent4: the capital is not Falstaffian. sent5: the buckle is maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy if the nip is not maximal. sent6: something that does steep scrimshanker is non-maximal thing that does freeze bureaucracy. sent7: if the nip steeps scrimshanker that the buckle steeps scrimshanker hold. sent8: the ormer is a micrometer if there exists something such that it is configurational thing that does supplicate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct. sent10: the fact that if that the self-portrait is a yawl is right the nip does steep scrimshanker or it is not uncivil or both is not wrong. sent11: the self-portrait is a yawl if there is something such that the fact that it is not tearful and it is not a seismologist is false. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is rotational and it is not relevant is not true the nip is not maximal. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent12 -> int1: the nip is not maximal.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the buckle is a kind of maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct.

The fact that it is not relevant is not correct.

if there exists something such that that it is rotational and it is not relevant is not true the nip is not maximal.

the fact that the buckle is maximal is not wrong.

sent1: if something is not Falstaffian it is configurational and it does supplicate. sent2: the buckle does not freeze bureaucracy. sent3: if something is a micrometer the fact that it is not tearful and not a seismologist does not hold. sent4: the capital is not Falstaffian. sent5: the buckle is maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy if the nip is not maximal. sent6: something that does steep scrimshanker is non-maximal thing that does freeze bureaucracy. sent7: if the nip steeps scrimshanker that the buckle steeps scrimshanker hold. sent8: the ormer is a micrometer if there exists something such that it is configurational thing that does supplicate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct. sent10: the fact that if that the self-portrait is a yawl is right the nip does steep scrimshanker or it is not uncivil or both is not wrong. sent11: the self-portrait is a yawl if there is something such that the fact that it is not tearful and it is not a seismologist is false. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is rotational and it is not relevant is not true the nip is not maximal.

{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the buckle is not maximal.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the buckle is maximal is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not Falstaffian it is configurational and it does supplicate. sent2: the buckle does not freeze bureaucracy. sent3: if something is a micrometer the fact that it is not tearful and not a seismologist does not hold. sent4: the capital is not Falstaffian. sent5: the buckle is maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy if the nip is not maximal. sent6: something that does steep scrimshanker is non-maximal thing that does freeze bureaucracy. sent7: if the nip steeps scrimshanker that the buckle steeps scrimshanker hold. sent8: the ormer is a micrometer if there exists something such that it is configurational thing that does supplicate. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct. sent10: the fact that if that the self-portrait is a yawl is right the nip does steep scrimshanker or it is not uncivil or both is not wrong. sent11: the self-portrait is a yawl if there is something such that the fact that it is not tearful and it is not a seismologist is false. sent12: if there exists something such that that it is rotational and it is not relevant is not true the nip is not maximal. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent12 -> int1: the nip is not maximal.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the buckle is a kind of maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is rotational and is not relevant is not correct.

There is something wrong with the fact that it is not relevant.

the buckle is maximal thing that does not freeze bureaucracy if the nip is not maximal.

that the abdication happens is right.

sent1: if the attributiveness does not occur then both the freezing winery and the bitting raid happens. sent2: not the bitting raid but the freezing winery happens if the attributiveness occurs. sent3: the steeping Wolffiella does not occur. sent4: if the bitting raid does not occur the abdication happens and the freezing TKO occurs. sent5: that the freezing reenactment does not occur is true. sent6: the freezing TKO does not occur if the abdication occurs. sent7: the unwariness does not occur. sent8: the keratinizing interestedness occurs. sent9: the fact that the axonalness does not occur is true. sent10: if the bitting raid happens then that the freezing TKO does not occur and the abdication does not occur does not hold. sent11: the conceptualization happens if the fact that the freezing TKO does not occur and the abdication does not occur is not correct. sent12: the freezing TKO happens.

{A}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent2: {E} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent3: ¬{DF} sent4: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent5: ¬{IB} sent6: {A} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{K} sent8: {S} sent9: ¬{BI} sent10: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent11: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {JG} sent12: {B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the conceptualization occurs.

{JG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the abdication happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the attributiveness does not occur then both the freezing winery and the bitting raid happens. sent2: not the bitting raid but the freezing winery happens if the attributiveness occurs. sent3: the steeping Wolffiella does not occur. sent4: if the bitting raid does not occur the abdication happens and the freezing TKO occurs. sent5: that the freezing reenactment does not occur is true. sent6: the freezing TKO does not occur if the abdication occurs. sent7: the unwariness does not occur. sent8: the keratinizing interestedness occurs. sent9: the fact that the axonalness does not occur is true. sent10: if the bitting raid happens then that the freezing TKO does not occur and the abdication does not occur does not hold. sent11: the conceptualization happens if the fact that the freezing TKO does not occur and the abdication does not occur is not correct. sent12: the freezing TKO happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the abdication happens.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the freezing TKO does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the freezing TKO does not occur if the abdication occurs.

the freezing TKO does not occur if the abdication occurs.

the freezing TKO happens.

the irrationalness happens.

sent1: if the fact that the pogonip happens and the secession happens is not right then the crustoseness does not occur. sent2: the importantness does not occur. sent3: not the adoration but the rest-cure occurs. sent4: that the freezing friskiness does not occur is not incorrect if the steeping Brahmi happens. sent5: the blinding does not occur. sent6: that the floating and the steeping rollerblader happens causes the non-irrationalness. sent7: the anacoluthicness happens and the renting occurs if the freezing sanitariness does not occur. sent8: not the floating but the steeping rollerblader happens. sent9: that the irrational and the electrophoreticness occurs is triggered by the non-crustoseness. sent10: if the float does not occur and the steeping rollerblader happens the irrationalness does not occur. sent11: the floating does not occur. sent12: that the pogonip happens and the secession occurs is not true if the freezing friskiness does not occur. sent13: if the pogonip happens then that that the electrophoreticness but not the crustoseness occurs is incorrect hold. sent14: the steeping Carcharhinus does not occur. sent15: if the anacoluthicness occurs that the steeping Brahmi happens is true.

{B}

sent1: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{DK} sent3: (¬{S} & {DU}) sent4: {G} -> ¬{F} sent5: ¬{O} sent6: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent8: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent10: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{AA} sent12: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent13: {D} -> ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent14: ¬{BS} sent15: {H} -> {G}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the irrationalness occurs is not wrong.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the irrationalness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pogonip happens and the secession happens is not right then the crustoseness does not occur. sent2: the importantness does not occur. sent3: not the adoration but the rest-cure occurs. sent4: that the freezing friskiness does not occur is not incorrect if the steeping Brahmi happens. sent5: the blinding does not occur. sent6: that the floating and the steeping rollerblader happens causes the non-irrationalness. sent7: the anacoluthicness happens and the renting occurs if the freezing sanitariness does not occur. sent8: not the floating but the steeping rollerblader happens. sent9: that the irrational and the electrophoreticness occurs is triggered by the non-crustoseness. sent10: if the float does not occur and the steeping rollerblader happens the irrationalness does not occur. sent11: the floating does not occur. sent12: that the pogonip happens and the secession occurs is not true if the freezing friskiness does not occur. sent13: if the pogonip happens then that that the electrophoreticness but not the crustoseness occurs is incorrect hold. sent14: the steeping Carcharhinus does not occur. sent15: if the anacoluthicness occurs that the steeping Brahmi happens is true. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the float does not occur and the steeping rollerblader happens the irrationalness does not occur.

if the float does not occur and the steeping rollerblader happens the irrationalness does not occur.

not the floating but the steeping rollerblader happens.

the flamethrower is acetic.

sent1: if the prod speculates then it steeps naturalization. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a copper. sent3: the MA coppers. sent4: there is something such that it is not an alligator. sent5: if the fact that the prod is a copper is true then the flamethrower is acetic. sent6: the prod is not a BMDO and is acetic. sent7: something does not overwhelm. sent8: the flamethrower is not a copper if something is not acetic. sent9: something alligators. sent10: if the fact that the squill does steep ruler is correct then the flamethrower is not acetic but it does alligator. sent11: the procarbazine is not a Isis but acetic. sent12: the prod is a kind of a dishpan. sent13: the prod does not steep ruler. sent14: if something is not an alligator then the squill does not steep ruler. sent15: if that the gonococcus speculates and is non-peripteral is not correct then the prod does speculates. sent16: that the flamethrower does not steep ruler hold if there are non-acetic things. sent17: if the squill does not steep ruler the prod does not steep ruler. sent18: if there exists something such that it does not copper the prod does not steep ruler.

{D}{c}

sent1: {G}{b} -> {E}{b} sent2: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent3: {C}{br} sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent6: (¬{BS}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{GM}x sent8: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}{c} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: {B}{a} -> (¬{D}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: (¬{II}{jf} & {D}{jf}) sent12: {F}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{b} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> {G}{b} sent16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{B}{c} sent17: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the flamethrower is not acetic is true.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flamethrower is acetic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prod speculates then it steeps naturalization. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a copper. sent3: the MA coppers. sent4: there is something such that it is not an alligator. sent5: if the fact that the prod is a copper is true then the flamethrower is acetic. sent6: the prod is not a BMDO and is acetic. sent7: something does not overwhelm. sent8: the flamethrower is not a copper if something is not acetic. sent9: something alligators. sent10: if the fact that the squill does steep ruler is correct then the flamethrower is not acetic but it does alligator. sent11: the procarbazine is not a Isis but acetic. sent12: the prod is a kind of a dishpan. sent13: the prod does not steep ruler. sent14: if something is not an alligator then the squill does not steep ruler. sent15: if that the gonococcus speculates and is non-peripteral is not correct then the prod does speculates. sent16: that the flamethrower does not steep ruler hold if there are non-acetic things. sent17: if the squill does not steep ruler the prod does not steep ruler. sent18: if there exists something such that it does not copper the prod does not steep ruler. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not an alligator.

there is something such that it is not an alligator.

if something is not an alligator then the squill does not steep ruler.

the Shylock is not blastomycotic.

sent1: the contortionist is blastomycotic. sent2: the Shylock is not geopolitical but blastomycotic if the wester is unrhythmical. sent3: the stilt does keratinize cholesterol if something that is not impolite is not a pinkness. sent4: the wester is unrhythmical. sent5: everything is not prolusory. sent6: the wester is not a nanometer but a twinge. sent7: that something is not impolite and it is not a kind of a pinkness if it is not prolusory is not incorrect.

¬{AB}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Shylock is not blastomycotic.

¬{AB}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Shylock is not blastomycotic. ; $context$ = sent1: the contortionist is blastomycotic. sent2: the Shylock is not geopolitical but blastomycotic if the wester is unrhythmical. sent3: the stilt does keratinize cholesterol if something that is not impolite is not a pinkness. sent4: the wester is unrhythmical. sent5: everything is not prolusory. sent6: the wester is not a nanometer but a twinge. sent7: that something is not impolite and it is not a kind of a pinkness if it is not prolusory is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: that the Shylock is not geopolitical and is blastomycotic is true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Shylock is not geopolitical but blastomycotic if the wester is unrhythmical.

the Shylock is not geopolitical but blastomycotic if the wester is unrhythmical.

the wester is unrhythmical.

the stamp occurs.

sent1: the ohmage occurs if the fact that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent2: if that the fact that both the stamp and the subjunctiveness occurs hold is wrong the stamp does not occur. sent3: if that the keratinizing flintlock does not occur but the ways occurs is not right the ways does not occur. sent4: the emergence occurs. sent5: if the fact that the ohmage happens is not incorrect the freezing wurtzite does not occur. sent6: the fact that that both the ways and the mononuclearness happens is right does not hold if that the stamp does not occur is not false. sent7: if the luckiness does not occur not the mononuclearness but the emergence happens. sent8: the mononuclearness occurs if the subjunctiveness happens and/or the ways does not occur. sent9: that the freezing wurtzite does not occur leads to that not the advertising but the steeping pompon happens. sent10: if the olfactoriness happens that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the luckiness happens the fact that the emergence does not occur and the keratinizing flintlock does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the mononuclearness happens the stamp occurs. sent13: the luckiness occurs and the keratinizing Arabic does not occur if the advertising does not occur. sent14: the subjunctive occurs and/or the ways occurs. sent15: that the stamp occurs and the subjunctiveness happens is not right if the ways does not occur. sent16: if the ways does not occur the mononuclearness occurs. sent17: the subjunctiveness occurs. sent18: the subjunctive occurs and the comprehensibleness happens if the ways does not occur.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the stamp does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stamp occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the ohmage occurs if the fact that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent2: if that the fact that both the stamp and the subjunctiveness occurs hold is wrong the stamp does not occur. sent3: if that the keratinizing flintlock does not occur but the ways occurs is not right the ways does not occur. sent4: the emergence occurs. sent5: if the fact that the ohmage happens is not incorrect the freezing wurtzite does not occur. sent6: the fact that that both the ways and the mononuclearness happens is right does not hold if that the stamp does not occur is not false. sent7: if the luckiness does not occur not the mononuclearness but the emergence happens. sent8: the mononuclearness occurs if the subjunctiveness happens and/or the ways does not occur. sent9: that the freezing wurtzite does not occur leads to that not the advertising but the steeping pompon happens. sent10: if the olfactoriness happens that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the luckiness happens the fact that the emergence does not occur and the keratinizing flintlock does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the mononuclearness happens the stamp occurs. sent13: the luckiness occurs and the keratinizing Arabic does not occur if the advertising does not occur. sent14: the subjunctive occurs and/or the ways occurs. sent15: that the stamp occurs and the subjunctiveness happens is not right if the ways does not occur. sent16: if the ways does not occur the mononuclearness occurs. sent17: the subjunctiveness occurs. sent18: the subjunctive occurs and the comprehensibleness happens if the ways does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the subjunctive happens and/or the ways does not occur.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the mononuclearness happens.; sent12 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subjunctiveness occurs.

The subjunctiveness occurs.

the mononuclearness occurs if the subjunctiveness happens and/or the ways does not occur.

the stamp occurs.

sent1: the ohmage occurs if the fact that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent2: if that the fact that both the stamp and the subjunctiveness occurs hold is wrong the stamp does not occur. sent3: if that the keratinizing flintlock does not occur but the ways occurs is not right the ways does not occur. sent4: the emergence occurs. sent5: if the fact that the ohmage happens is not incorrect the freezing wurtzite does not occur. sent6: the fact that that both the ways and the mononuclearness happens is right does not hold if that the stamp does not occur is not false. sent7: if the luckiness does not occur not the mononuclearness but the emergence happens. sent8: the mononuclearness occurs if the subjunctiveness happens and/or the ways does not occur. sent9: that the freezing wurtzite does not occur leads to that not the advertising but the steeping pompon happens. sent10: if the olfactoriness happens that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the luckiness happens the fact that the emergence does not occur and the keratinizing flintlock does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the mononuclearness happens the stamp occurs. sent13: the luckiness occurs and the keratinizing Arabic does not occur if the advertising does not occur. sent14: the subjunctive occurs and/or the ways occurs. sent15: that the stamp occurs and the subjunctiveness happens is not right if the ways does not occur. sent16: if the ways does not occur the mononuclearness occurs. sent17: the subjunctiveness occurs. sent18: the subjunctive occurs and the comprehensibleness happens if the ways does not occur.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the stamp does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stamp occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the ohmage occurs if the fact that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent2: if that the fact that both the stamp and the subjunctiveness occurs hold is wrong the stamp does not occur. sent3: if that the keratinizing flintlock does not occur but the ways occurs is not right the ways does not occur. sent4: the emergence occurs. sent5: if the fact that the ohmage happens is not incorrect the freezing wurtzite does not occur. sent6: the fact that that both the ways and the mononuclearness happens is right does not hold if that the stamp does not occur is not false. sent7: if the luckiness does not occur not the mononuclearness but the emergence happens. sent8: the mononuclearness occurs if the subjunctiveness happens and/or the ways does not occur. sent9: that the freezing wurtzite does not occur leads to that not the advertising but the steeping pompon happens. sent10: if the olfactoriness happens that the gift does not occur and the ohmage does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the luckiness happens the fact that the emergence does not occur and the keratinizing flintlock does not occur does not hold. sent12: if the mononuclearness happens the stamp occurs. sent13: the luckiness occurs and the keratinizing Arabic does not occur if the advertising does not occur. sent14: the subjunctive occurs and/or the ways occurs. sent15: that the stamp occurs and the subjunctiveness happens is not right if the ways does not occur. sent16: if the ways does not occur the mononuclearness occurs. sent17: the subjunctiveness occurs. sent18: the subjunctive occurs and the comprehensibleness happens if the ways does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the subjunctive happens and/or the ways does not occur.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the mononuclearness happens.; sent12 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subjunctiveness occurs.

The subjunctiveness happens.

if the mononuclearness happens the stamp occurs.

the pectoralness does not occur.

sent1: the animist happens. sent2: the pectoralness occurs if the hiplessness happens. sent3: that the hearing does not occur if the ballisticness occurs is correct. sent4: if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs. sent5: both the ballisticness and the pandemic happens if the slapping does not occur. sent6: the fact that if that the hearing does not occur is not false that the identification does not occur and the pectoral does not occur is false is not incorrect.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bitting night-sight happens.

{DR}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pectoralness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the animist happens. sent2: the pectoralness occurs if the hiplessness happens. sent3: that the hearing does not occur if the ballisticness occurs is correct. sent4: if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs. sent5: both the ballisticness and the pandemic happens if the slapping does not occur. sent6: the fact that if that the hearing does not occur is not false that the identification does not occur and the pectoral does not occur is false is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the hiplessness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs.

The hiplessness occurs if the animist happens.

the animist happens.

the pectoralness does not occur.

sent1: the animist happens. sent2: the pectoralness occurs if the hiplessness happens. sent3: that the hearing does not occur if the ballisticness occurs is correct. sent4: if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs. sent5: both the ballisticness and the pandemic happens if the slapping does not occur. sent6: the fact that if that the hearing does not occur is not false that the identification does not occur and the pectoral does not occur is false is not incorrect.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bitting night-sight happens.

{DR}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pectoralness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the animist happens. sent2: the pectoralness occurs if the hiplessness happens. sent3: that the hearing does not occur if the ballisticness occurs is correct. sent4: if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs. sent5: both the ballisticness and the pandemic happens if the slapping does not occur. sent6: the fact that if that the hearing does not occur is not false that the identification does not occur and the pectoral does not occur is false is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the hiplessness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the animist happens then the hiplessness occurs.

Hiplessness occurs if the animist happens.

the pectoralness occurs if the hiplessness happens.

the regulation does not occur.

sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the regulation happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the regulation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the shutout happens.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the deepness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shutout happens and the deepness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens.

The shutout happens if the bitting liberality happens.

the bitting liberality occurs.

the regulation does not occur.

sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the regulation happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the regulation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the shutout happens.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the deepness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shutout happens and the deepness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens.

If the bitting liberality happens.

the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right.

the regulation does not occur.

sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the regulation happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the regulation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the shutout happens.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the deepness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shutout happens and the deepness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens.

The shutout will happen if the bitting liberality happens.

the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true.

the regulation does not occur.

sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the regulation happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the regulation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the provision does not occur the deepness occurs. sent2: if the steeping corvette happens then the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs. sent3: the paperiness and/or the freezing inactivation is triggered by the incommutableness. sent4: that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs. sent5: the slenderizing does not occur if the paperiness occurs. sent6: if the incitation happens the steeping corvette occurs. sent7: the regulation is brought about by that the provisioning occurs. sent8: the fact that the provision but not the leaning occurs is not true. sent9: that the provision does not occur and the leaning happens is triggered by that the handover does not occur. sent10: the commutableness does not occur. sent11: the bitting liberality occurs. sent12: the incitation occurs and the embarking happens if the slenderizing does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness occurs is false the handover does not occur. sent14: if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens. sent15: if the non-paleoanthropologicalness and the non-cytokineticness happens then the handover does not occur. sent16: the provisioning and the non-leanness happens if the handover does not occur. sent17: the deep happens if that that the provision happens but the leanness does not occur is not false is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the shutout happens.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the deepness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shutout happens and the deepness occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bitting liberality happens then the shutout happens.

The shutout happens if bitting liberality happens.

that the regulation occurs is prevented by that the shutout happens and the deepness occurs.

the fact that the mimeograph is both not cytoarchitectural and astronomic is not correct.

sent1: the mimeograph does steep viceroy if it is a Adenauer. sent2: the mimeograph does not steep viceroy if the declension does not steep viceroy and it is not shockable. sent3: the fact that the mimeograph is a kind of cytoarchitectural thing that is astronomic does not hold if it steeps viceroy. sent4: that something is cytoarchitectural and is astronomic is incorrect if it steeps viceroy. sent5: if the fact that the mimeograph is a decimal is right that it is non-astronomic thing that is a kind of a buteonine is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a Halimodendron and is cytoarchitectural is not true if it does not steep viceroy. sent7: the fact that the reluctance is pointless is right if the monohydrate is caecilian. sent8: the fact that the mimeograph is cytoarchitectural and it is astronomic is not correct. sent9: the fact that the tentorium does not bitt holiday is right if the bagger is pointless. sent10: the mimeograph is a Adenauer. sent11: something is a kind of a caecilian if it coalesces. sent12: something is both a Adenauer and a screw if it does not bitt holiday. sent13: the chiropractor is astronomic. sent14: the declension is a Adenauer if the tentorium is a Adenauer. sent15: the monohydrate coalesces. sent16: the Caucasian is astronomic. sent17: if that the declension does steep viceroy is not false the fact that the mimeograph is both non-cytoarchitectural and astronomic is true. sent18: the bagger is not pointed if the reluctance is pointed.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: {B}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {BR}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {IH}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{BE}x & {AA}x) sent7: {G}{e} -> {F}{d} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: {F}{c} -> ¬{E}{b} sent10: {B}{aa} sent11: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x & {D}x) sent13: {AB}{bd} sent14: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent15: {H}{e} sent16: {AB}{gp} sent17: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent18: {F}{d} -> {F}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the mimeograph is both not a Halimodendron and cytoarchitectural is not right.

¬(¬{BE}{aa} & {AA}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mimeograph is both not cytoarchitectural and astronomic is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the mimeograph does steep viceroy if it is a Adenauer. sent2: the mimeograph does not steep viceroy if the declension does not steep viceroy and it is not shockable. sent3: the fact that the mimeograph is a kind of cytoarchitectural thing that is astronomic does not hold if it steeps viceroy. sent4: that something is cytoarchitectural and is astronomic is incorrect if it steeps viceroy. sent5: if the fact that the mimeograph is a decimal is right that it is non-astronomic thing that is a kind of a buteonine is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a Halimodendron and is cytoarchitectural is not true if it does not steep viceroy. sent7: the fact that the reluctance is pointless is right if the monohydrate is caecilian. sent8: the fact that the mimeograph is cytoarchitectural and it is astronomic is not correct. sent9: the fact that the tentorium does not bitt holiday is right if the bagger is pointless. sent10: the mimeograph is a Adenauer. sent11: something is a kind of a caecilian if it coalesces. sent12: something is both a Adenauer and a screw if it does not bitt holiday. sent13: the chiropractor is astronomic. sent14: the declension is a Adenauer if the tentorium is a Adenauer. sent15: the monohydrate coalesces. sent16: the Caucasian is astronomic. sent17: if that the declension does steep viceroy is not false the fact that the mimeograph is both non-cytoarchitectural and astronomic is true. sent18: the bagger is not pointed if the reluctance is pointed. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mimeograph does steep viceroy if it is a Adenauer.

the mimeograph does steep viceroy if it is a Adenauer.

the mimeograph is a Adenauer.

the skidding does not occur.

sent1: if that both the non-thriftyness and the painfulness occurs is not correct then the licensing does not occur. sent2: the bagatelle does not occur. sent3: the skidding does not occur if the fact that the steeping Clathrus does not occur and the circulativeness does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that both the non-asexualness and the non-deepness happens is wrong. sent5: the blizzard does not occur. sent6: that the steeping Clathrus happens leads to the skid. sent7: the fact that both the steeping Clathrus and the circulativeness happens is true if the impoundment does not occur. sent8: that the Nazareneness happens and the kip does not occur is not true. sent9: the circulativeness happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬(¬{EM} & ¬{EJ}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{DK} sent3: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬(¬{EG} & ¬{IS}) sent5: ¬{IJ} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬({HG} & ¬{AB}) sent9: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

the skid happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the skidding does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that both the non-thriftyness and the painfulness occurs is not correct then the licensing does not occur. sent2: the bagatelle does not occur. sent3: the skidding does not occur if the fact that the steeping Clathrus does not occur and the circulativeness does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that both the non-asexualness and the non-deepness happens is wrong. sent5: the blizzard does not occur. sent6: that the steeping Clathrus happens leads to the skid. sent7: the fact that both the steeping Clathrus and the circulativeness happens is true if the impoundment does not occur. sent8: that the Nazareneness happens and the kip does not occur is not true. sent9: the circulativeness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the steeping Clathrus does not occur and the circulativeness does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the circulativeness does not occur.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the steeping Clathrus does not occur and the circulativeness does not occur is false.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the circulativeness happens.

the circulativeness happens.

the skidding does not occur if the fact that the steeping Clathrus does not occur and the circulativeness does not occur is incorrect.

both the freezing pince-nez and the ostomy happens.

sent1: the Tongan happens. sent2: the cartage does not occur. sent3: that the anaplasty happens is not wrong if the fact that the camping occurs is right. sent4: the antiapartheidness occurs. sent5: the duplication happens. sent6: the rarefaction occurs and the stinginess happens if the clonalness does not occur. sent7: the prismaticness does not occur. sent8: the laziness happens. sent9: if the prismaticness does not occur then the fertileness happens. sent10: the freezing pince-nez happens if the stinginess occurs. sent11: the conservancy occurs. sent12: if that the unpropheticness does not occur is not wrong that the prismaticness happens and the fertileness occurs is not correct. sent13: the smuggling occurs. sent14: the stinginess happens and the clonalness happens. sent15: if the fertileness does not occur then both the non-stingyness and the non-clonalness happens. sent16: if the stinginess does not occur then the fact that both the freezing pince-nez and the ostomy occurs is false. sent17: the generationalness occurs. sent18: the raiding occurs and the keratinizing pikeblenny happens. sent19: the unpropheticness does not occur if the fact that the Hadith happens but the camping does not occur is not correct. sent20: if the etiology does not occur then that the Hadith but not the camping happens does not hold. sent21: the keratinizing deoxythymidine occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: {CB} sent2: ¬{AE} sent3: {I} -> {DS} sent4: {HO} sent5: {FA} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({HC} & {A}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: {CM} sent9: ¬{F} -> {E} sent10: {A} -> {C} sent11: {GG} sent12: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & {E}) sent13: {BG} sent14: ({A} & {B}) sent15: ¬{E} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent16: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent17: {HT} sent18: ({FL} & {ER}) sent19: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent20: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & ¬{I}) sent21: {FK}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the rarefaction occurs and the freezing rejection occurs.

({HC} & {HE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the freezing pince-nez and the ostomy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Tongan happens. sent2: the cartage does not occur. sent3: that the anaplasty happens is not wrong if the fact that the camping occurs is right. sent4: the antiapartheidness occurs. sent5: the duplication happens. sent6: the rarefaction occurs and the stinginess happens if the clonalness does not occur. sent7: the prismaticness does not occur. sent8: the laziness happens. sent9: if the prismaticness does not occur then the fertileness happens. sent10: the freezing pince-nez happens if the stinginess occurs. sent11: the conservancy occurs. sent12: if that the unpropheticness does not occur is not wrong that the prismaticness happens and the fertileness occurs is not correct. sent13: the smuggling occurs. sent14: the stinginess happens and the clonalness happens. sent15: if the fertileness does not occur then both the non-stingyness and the non-clonalness happens. sent16: if the stinginess does not occur then the fact that both the freezing pince-nez and the ostomy occurs is false. sent17: the generationalness occurs. sent18: the raiding occurs and the keratinizing pikeblenny happens. sent19: the unpropheticness does not occur if the fact that the Hadith happens but the camping does not occur is not correct. sent20: if the etiology does not occur then that the Hadith but not the camping happens does not hold. sent21: the keratinizing deoxythymidine occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the stinginess happens and the clonalness happens.

the stinginess happens and the clonalness happens.

the freezing pince-nez happens if the stinginess occurs.

that the rewa-rewa is autogenous thing that is not a libertarian is not right.

sent1: the microfilm is a footplate and does bitt Guangzhou. sent2: that the rewa-rewa is proprioceptive but it is not a libertarian is not true. sent3: the thiabendazole is forcipate or it is not a kind of a lumper or both. sent4: the microfilm is both a footplate and a libertarian. sent5: the microfilm is a footplate. sent6: that the rewa-rewa is a kind of autogenous thing that is not a kind of a libertarian does not hold if the microfilm is a libertarian. sent7: the fact that the rewa-rewa is both autogenous and a libertarian does not hold if the microfilm is a libertarian. sent8: the fact that that the rewa-rewa is autogenous and it is a libertarian hold does not hold. sent9: the microfilm is autogenous. sent10: that that the microfilm is a lumper but it is not meridional does not hold is correct. sent11: the fact that the officiant is a libertarian is true. sent12: something that is gaseous is a meet. sent13: the trypsinogen does not steep Aengus if the thiabendazole is forcipate and it is a meet. sent14: if the trypsinogen does not steep Aengus then that the microfilm is not a cecum and it is not a footplate is not right. sent15: something is gaseous if it is exacta. sent16: the vestment is exacta. sent17: if the thiabendazole is forcipate and/or it is not a lumper then it is forcipate. sent18: if the vestment is not non-gaseous then the thiabendazole is non-gaseous. sent19: if the rewa-rewa is a libertarian that the microfilm is autogenous but it is not a kind of a libertarian is false.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the rewa-rewa is autogenous but it is not a libertarian.

({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the rewa-rewa is autogenous thing that is not a libertarian is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the microfilm is a footplate and does bitt Guangzhou. sent2: that the rewa-rewa is proprioceptive but it is not a libertarian is not true. sent3: the thiabendazole is forcipate or it is not a kind of a lumper or both. sent4: the microfilm is both a footplate and a libertarian. sent5: the microfilm is a footplate. sent6: that the rewa-rewa is a kind of autogenous thing that is not a kind of a libertarian does not hold if the microfilm is a libertarian. sent7: the fact that the rewa-rewa is both autogenous and a libertarian does not hold if the microfilm is a libertarian. sent8: the fact that that the rewa-rewa is autogenous and it is a libertarian hold does not hold. sent9: the microfilm is autogenous. sent10: that that the microfilm is a lumper but it is not meridional does not hold is correct. sent11: the fact that the officiant is a libertarian is true. sent12: something that is gaseous is a meet. sent13: the trypsinogen does not steep Aengus if the thiabendazole is forcipate and it is a meet. sent14: if the trypsinogen does not steep Aengus then that the microfilm is not a cecum and it is not a footplate is not right. sent15: something is gaseous if it is exacta. sent16: the vestment is exacta. sent17: if the thiabendazole is forcipate and/or it is not a lumper then it is forcipate. sent18: if the vestment is not non-gaseous then the thiabendazole is non-gaseous. sent19: if the rewa-rewa is a libertarian that the microfilm is autogenous but it is not a kind of a libertarian is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the microfilm is a kind of a libertarian.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the microfilm is both a footplate and a libertarian.

the microfilm is both a footplate and a libertarian.

that the rewa-rewa is a kind of autogenous thing that is not a kind of a libertarian does not hold if the microfilm is a libertarian.

the pelisse is not small.

sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small.

¬{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pelisse is small.

{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pelisse is not small. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the pelisse freezes Augustinian and is a discharged is not right.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true.

The bromoform does not freeze Augustinian if the hooch does not steep brouhaha.

the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral.

the pelisse is not small.

sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small.

¬{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pelisse is small.

{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pelisse is not small. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the pelisse freezes Augustinian and is a discharged is not right.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true.

The bromoform does not freeze Augustinian, if the hooch does not steep brouhaha.

the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian.

the pelisse is not small.

sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small.

¬{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pelisse is small.

{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pelisse is not small. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bromoform does not steep brouhaha then it does not freeze Augustinian. sent2: if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true. sent3: the hooch does not wharf but it is a outwork. sent4: the fact that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and discharges is incorrect if the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian. sent5: the hooch does not steep brouhaha and is not a kind of an integral. sent6: if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the pelisse freezes Augustinian and is a discharged is not right.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the hooch does not steep brouhaha and it is not a kind of an integral that the bromoform does not freeze Augustinian is true.

The bromoform doesn't freeze Augustinian if the hooch does not steep brouhaha.

if that the pelisse does freeze Augustinian and it discharges is wrong then it is not a small.

the milk-vetch is an underachiever.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a gabbro then the ghoul is Balzacian and it is a combo. sent2: if that something is not immoral is not incorrect then it does not freeze outwork and is not a kind of a Nubian. sent3: if the fact that the methane is not a kind of a combo hold that the ghoul is not immoral and/or it does freeze outwork does not hold. sent4: if the milk-vetch does freeze canola and does not freeze outwork then it is not a Nubian. sent5: the rivulus is not Balzacian but it is a kind of an underachiever. sent6: if something is not testaceous but it is a snap it is not a gabbro. sent7: if the fact that the outwork is a kind of a Nubian and/or it is an underachiever is not true then the milk-vetch is not an underachiever. sent8: the milk-vetch is not unsocial. sent9: the acrodont is not a Nubian. sent10: the scheelite is Guatemalan if that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off does not hold. sent11: the milk-vetch is plumbaginaceous but it is non-demographic. sent12: if the outwork does not freeze outwork and it is not a Nubian the checkout freezes canola. sent13: the methane snaps. sent14: something is immoral and does steep subnormal if the fact that it does not immobilize hold. sent15: the milk-vetch does freeze canola but it does not freeze outwork. sent16: something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect. sent17: if something does not freeze canola the fact that it is a Nubian and/or is a kind of an underachiever is wrong. sent18: the outwork is not immoral if the ghoul is both not non-Balzacian and not immoral. sent19: if the scheelite is Guatemalan the ghoul does not immobilize and is an eyesore. sent20: the fathead does not steep subnormal and is a kind of a mound. sent21: the fact that the methane is not testaceous hold. sent22: that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off is incorrect. sent23: the milk-vetch does freeze canola.

{AB}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b}) sent4: ({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: (¬{F}{j} & {AB}{j}) sent6: (x): (¬{M}x & {L}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: ¬({A}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent8: ¬{CA}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{is} sent10: ¬(¬{O}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) -> {K}{d} sent11: ({HG}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent12: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {B}{gd} sent13: {L}{c} sent14: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({D}x & {G}x) sent15: ({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v {AB}x) sent18: ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent19: {K}{d} -> (¬{I}{b} & {J}{b}) sent20: (¬{G}{bk} & {HD}{bk}) sent21: ¬{M}{c} sent22: ¬(¬{O}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent23: {B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the milk-vetch is not a kind of an underachiever.

¬{AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the milk-vetch is an underachiever. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a gabbro then the ghoul is Balzacian and it is a combo. sent2: if that something is not immoral is not incorrect then it does not freeze outwork and is not a kind of a Nubian. sent3: if the fact that the methane is not a kind of a combo hold that the ghoul is not immoral and/or it does freeze outwork does not hold. sent4: if the milk-vetch does freeze canola and does not freeze outwork then it is not a Nubian. sent5: the rivulus is not Balzacian but it is a kind of an underachiever. sent6: if something is not testaceous but it is a snap it is not a gabbro. sent7: if the fact that the outwork is a kind of a Nubian and/or it is an underachiever is not true then the milk-vetch is not an underachiever. sent8: the milk-vetch is not unsocial. sent9: the acrodont is not a Nubian. sent10: the scheelite is Guatemalan if that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off does not hold. sent11: the milk-vetch is plumbaginaceous but it is non-demographic. sent12: if the outwork does not freeze outwork and it is not a Nubian the checkout freezes canola. sent13: the methane snaps. sent14: something is immoral and does steep subnormal if the fact that it does not immobilize hold. sent15: the milk-vetch does freeze canola but it does not freeze outwork. sent16: something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect. sent17: if something does not freeze canola the fact that it is a Nubian and/or is a kind of an underachiever is wrong. sent18: the outwork is not immoral if the ghoul is both not non-Balzacian and not immoral. sent19: if the scheelite is Guatemalan the ghoul does not immobilize and is an eyesore. sent20: the fathead does not steep subnormal and is a kind of a mound. sent21: the fact that the methane is not testaceous hold. sent22: that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off is incorrect. sent23: the milk-vetch does freeze canola. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the milk-vetch is a kind of non-demographic an underachiever if it is not a kind of a Nubian.; sent4 & sent15 -> int2: the milk-vetch is not a Nubian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the milk-vetch is not a kind of a demographic but it is an underachiever.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect.

If the fact that it is not a Nubian is incorrect, then something is an underachiever.

if the milk-vetch does freeze canola and does not freeze outwork then it is not a Nubian.

the milk-vetch is an underachiever.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a gabbro then the ghoul is Balzacian and it is a combo. sent2: if that something is not immoral is not incorrect then it does not freeze outwork and is not a kind of a Nubian. sent3: if the fact that the methane is not a kind of a combo hold that the ghoul is not immoral and/or it does freeze outwork does not hold. sent4: if the milk-vetch does freeze canola and does not freeze outwork then it is not a Nubian. sent5: the rivulus is not Balzacian but it is a kind of an underachiever. sent6: if something is not testaceous but it is a snap it is not a gabbro. sent7: if the fact that the outwork is a kind of a Nubian and/or it is an underachiever is not true then the milk-vetch is not an underachiever. sent8: the milk-vetch is not unsocial. sent9: the acrodont is not a Nubian. sent10: the scheelite is Guatemalan if that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off does not hold. sent11: the milk-vetch is plumbaginaceous but it is non-demographic. sent12: if the outwork does not freeze outwork and it is not a Nubian the checkout freezes canola. sent13: the methane snaps. sent14: something is immoral and does steep subnormal if the fact that it does not immobilize hold. sent15: the milk-vetch does freeze canola but it does not freeze outwork. sent16: something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect. sent17: if something does not freeze canola the fact that it is a Nubian and/or is a kind of an underachiever is wrong. sent18: the outwork is not immoral if the ghoul is both not non-Balzacian and not immoral. sent19: if the scheelite is Guatemalan the ghoul does not immobilize and is an eyesore. sent20: the fathead does not steep subnormal and is a kind of a mound. sent21: the fact that the methane is not testaceous hold. sent22: that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off is incorrect. sent23: the milk-vetch does freeze canola.

{AB}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b}) sent4: ({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: (¬{F}{j} & {AB}{j}) sent6: (x): (¬{M}x & {L}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: ¬({A}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent8: ¬{CA}{aa} sent9: ¬{A}{is} sent10: ¬(¬{O}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) -> {K}{d} sent11: ({HG}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent12: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {B}{gd} sent13: {L}{c} sent14: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({D}x & {G}x) sent15: ({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v {AB}x) sent18: ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent19: {K}{d} -> (¬{I}{b} & {J}{b}) sent20: (¬{G}{bk} & {HD}{bk}) sent21: ¬{M}{c} sent22: ¬(¬{O}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent23: {B}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the milk-vetch is not a kind of an underachiever.

¬{AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the milk-vetch is an underachiever. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a gabbro then the ghoul is Balzacian and it is a combo. sent2: if that something is not immoral is not incorrect then it does not freeze outwork and is not a kind of a Nubian. sent3: if the fact that the methane is not a kind of a combo hold that the ghoul is not immoral and/or it does freeze outwork does not hold. sent4: if the milk-vetch does freeze canola and does not freeze outwork then it is not a Nubian. sent5: the rivulus is not Balzacian but it is a kind of an underachiever. sent6: if something is not testaceous but it is a snap it is not a gabbro. sent7: if the fact that the outwork is a kind of a Nubian and/or it is an underachiever is not true then the milk-vetch is not an underachiever. sent8: the milk-vetch is not unsocial. sent9: the acrodont is not a Nubian. sent10: the scheelite is Guatemalan if that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off does not hold. sent11: the milk-vetch is plumbaginaceous but it is non-demographic. sent12: if the outwork does not freeze outwork and it is not a Nubian the checkout freezes canola. sent13: the methane snaps. sent14: something is immoral and does steep subnormal if the fact that it does not immobilize hold. sent15: the milk-vetch does freeze canola but it does not freeze outwork. sent16: something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect. sent17: if something does not freeze canola the fact that it is a Nubian and/or is a kind of an underachiever is wrong. sent18: the outwork is not immoral if the ghoul is both not non-Balzacian and not immoral. sent19: if the scheelite is Guatemalan the ghoul does not immobilize and is an eyesore. sent20: the fathead does not steep subnormal and is a kind of a mound. sent21: the fact that the methane is not testaceous hold. sent22: that the calpac is not Peloponnesian and not a brush-off is incorrect. sent23: the milk-vetch does freeze canola. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the milk-vetch is a kind of non-demographic an underachiever if it is not a kind of a Nubian.; sent4 & sent15 -> int2: the milk-vetch is not a Nubian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the milk-vetch is not a kind of a demographic but it is an underachiever.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of non-demographic thing that is an underachiever if the fact that it is not a Nubian is not incorrect.

If the fact that it is not a Nubian is incorrect, something is an underachiever.

the milk-vetch does freeze canola but it does not freeze outwork.

the nestling happens.

sent1: the antisepticizing hallux happens. sent2: that the reissuing photoelectron does not occur and the dabbing does not occur is false if the fact that the underhandness does not occur hold. sent3: the aestheticsness happens. sent4: the dab does not occur. sent5: the nestling occurs if the reissuing photoelectron occurs. sent6: that the adenoidalness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing pylon does not occur. sent7: the reissuing photoelectron happens but the dabbing does not occur.

{C}

sent1: {HJ} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent3: {AB} sent4: ¬{B} sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: {GL} -> {GQ} sent7: ({A} & ¬{B})

PROVED

PROVED

the nestling does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nestling happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the antisepticizing hallux happens. sent2: that the reissuing photoelectron does not occur and the dabbing does not occur is false if the fact that the underhandness does not occur hold. sent3: the aestheticsness happens. sent4: the dab does not occur. sent5: the nestling occurs if the reissuing photoelectron occurs. sent6: that the adenoidalness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing pylon does not occur. sent7: the reissuing photoelectron happens but the dabbing does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the reissuing photoelectron occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the reissuing photoelectron happens but the dabbing does not occur.

the reissuing photoelectron happens but the dabbing does not occur.

the nestling occurs if the reissuing photoelectron occurs.

the Californian is a kind of intracellular thing that is not a columbine.

sent1: that the Californian is both intracellular and not a columbine does not hold if it is a kabob. sent2: the Cimarron is not a kabob. sent3: the Californian is intracellular but not a kabob. sent4: the Californian is a kind of a columbine but it is not a kabob if the Cimarron is not intracellular. sent5: the Californian is intracellular and is not a columbine if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob. sent6: the Californian is both unforgettable and not a hotchpotch. sent7: if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob then the Californian is intracellular. sent8: if the Californian is not intracellular the Cimarron is a kind of a columbine but it is not a kabob. sent9: the fact that the Californian is not intracellular does not hold. sent10: the Cimarron is a kind of a present but it is not a mood. sent11: the Cimarron is intracellular but it is not a kabob if the Californian is not a kind of a columbine.

({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: {A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: ({AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent4: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({AB}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent6: ({EM}{b} & ¬{GF}{b}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent8: ¬{AA}{b} -> ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent9: {AA}{b} sent10: ({FJ}{a} & ¬{IT}{a}) sent11: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{A}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Californian is both intracellular and not a columbine is incorrect.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Californian is a kind of intracellular thing that is not a columbine. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Californian is both intracellular and not a columbine does not hold if it is a kabob. sent2: the Cimarron is not a kabob. sent3: the Californian is intracellular but not a kabob. sent4: the Californian is a kind of a columbine but it is not a kabob if the Cimarron is not intracellular. sent5: the Californian is intracellular and is not a columbine if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob. sent6: the Californian is both unforgettable and not a hotchpotch. sent7: if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob then the Californian is intracellular. sent8: if the Californian is not intracellular the Cimarron is a kind of a columbine but it is not a kabob. sent9: the fact that the Californian is not intracellular does not hold. sent10: the Cimarron is a kind of a present but it is not a mood. sent11: the Cimarron is intracellular but it is not a kabob if the Californian is not a kind of a columbine. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Californian is intracellular and is not a columbine if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob.

the Californian is intracellular and is not a columbine if the Cimarron is not a kind of a kabob.

the Cimarron is not a kabob.

the hemisphere unmans photoelectron.

sent1: the prawn is topographical. sent2: the fact that the hemisphere is not a stupid and it is not topographical is not right. sent3: that something is not a spongefly and it is not topographical is not correct if it is fruitful. sent4: that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is incorrect. sent5: the hemisphere does unman photoelectron if it is a spongefly. sent6: the fact that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is not right if it is fruitful. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a watchtower is not fruitful it does not unman photoelectron. sent8: the hemisphere is a watchtower. sent9: if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful. sent10: a spongefly unmans photoelectron. sent11: the fact that something is a spongefly but it is not topographical does not hold if it is fruitful.

{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the hemisphere does not unman photoelectron.

¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hemisphere unmans photoelectron. ; $context$ = sent1: the prawn is topographical. sent2: the fact that the hemisphere is not a stupid and it is not topographical is not right. sent3: that something is not a spongefly and it is not topographical is not correct if it is fruitful. sent4: that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is incorrect. sent5: the hemisphere does unman photoelectron if it is a spongefly. sent6: the fact that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is not right if it is fruitful. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a watchtower is not fruitful it does not unman photoelectron. sent8: the hemisphere is a watchtower. sent9: if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful. sent10: a spongefly unmans photoelectron. sent11: the fact that something is a spongefly but it is not topographical does not hold if it is fruitful. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful.

It is fruitful if the hemisphere is a watchtower.

the hemisphere is a watchtower.

the hemisphere unmans photoelectron.

sent1: the prawn is topographical. sent2: the fact that the hemisphere is not a stupid and it is not topographical is not right. sent3: that something is not a spongefly and it is not topographical is not correct if it is fruitful. sent4: that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is incorrect. sent5: the hemisphere does unman photoelectron if it is a spongefly. sent6: the fact that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is not right if it is fruitful. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a watchtower is not fruitful it does not unman photoelectron. sent8: the hemisphere is a watchtower. sent9: if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful. sent10: a spongefly unmans photoelectron. sent11: the fact that something is a spongefly but it is not topographical does not hold if it is fruitful.

{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the hemisphere does not unman photoelectron.

¬{E}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hemisphere unmans photoelectron. ; $context$ = sent1: the prawn is topographical. sent2: the fact that the hemisphere is not a stupid and it is not topographical is not right. sent3: that something is not a spongefly and it is not topographical is not correct if it is fruitful. sent4: that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is incorrect. sent5: the hemisphere does unman photoelectron if it is a spongefly. sent6: the fact that the hemisphere is a spongefly but it is not topographical is not right if it is fruitful. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a watchtower is not fruitful it does not unman photoelectron. sent8: the hemisphere is a watchtower. sent9: if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful. sent10: a spongefly unmans photoelectron. sent11: the fact that something is a spongefly but it is not topographical does not hold if it is fruitful. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful.

If the hemisphere is a watchtower then it is fruitful.

that something is not a spongefly and it is not topographical is not correct if it is fruitful.

that there are likely things does not hold.

sent1: the thumbnail is not a cardinal and/or is a kind of a dacite. sent2: the thumbnail is unlikely if the tiger is unassertive. sent3: the watercress is a kind of a dacite or it does not uncloak or both. sent4: the thumbnail is not a kind of a cardinal and/or it is not a dacite. sent5: something is a mezzo-relievo and does unman Alhazen if it is not unassertive. sent6: if the thumbnail is not cardinal or not a dacite or both it is not unlikely. sent7: if something does not habituate quahog then it is unlikely and/or is unassertive. sent8: that the dock is not a dacite is not false. sent9: the blackcock does not uncloak if the thumbnail is unlikely and it is a mezzo-relievo. sent10: if the tiger is unlikely then the thumbnail is unlikely. sent11: either the quahog is not unconditional or it is not a kind of a dacite or both. sent12: the thumbnail is cardinal and/or not a dacite. sent13: the thumbnail is not a manicurist and/or it is not a kind of a rudderpost. sent14: something is not a catalufa and/or it is not a dacite if it does not uncloak. sent15: if something is a mezzo-relievo the fact that it is a kind of probable thing that does uncloak hold. sent16: there are unlikely things. sent17: something does not habituate quahog if that it does habituate quahog and it is a kind of a taro is not correct.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent2: {E}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: ({AB}{hf} v ¬{A}{hf}) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent6: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({B}x v {E}x) sent8: ¬{AB}{di} sent9: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{cq} sent10: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent11: (¬{AC}{hn} v ¬{AB}{hn}) sent12: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent13: (¬{AM}{a} v ¬{CC}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{BG}x v ¬{AB}x) sent15: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent16: (Ex): {B}x sent17: (x): ¬({J}x & {L}x) -> ¬{J}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the otologist is not cardinal.

¬{AA}{fn}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there are likely things does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the thumbnail is not a cardinal and/or is a kind of a dacite. sent2: the thumbnail is unlikely if the tiger is unassertive. sent3: the watercress is a kind of a dacite or it does not uncloak or both. sent4: the thumbnail is not a kind of a cardinal and/or it is not a dacite. sent5: something is a mezzo-relievo and does unman Alhazen if it is not unassertive. sent6: if the thumbnail is not cardinal or not a dacite or both it is not unlikely. sent7: if something does not habituate quahog then it is unlikely and/or is unassertive. sent8: that the dock is not a dacite is not false. sent9: the blackcock does not uncloak if the thumbnail is unlikely and it is a mezzo-relievo. sent10: if the tiger is unlikely then the thumbnail is unlikely. sent11: either the quahog is not unconditional or it is not a kind of a dacite or both. sent12: the thumbnail is cardinal and/or not a dacite. sent13: the thumbnail is not a manicurist and/or it is not a kind of a rudderpost. sent14: something is not a catalufa and/or it is not a dacite if it does not uncloak. sent15: if something is a mezzo-relievo the fact that it is a kind of probable thing that does uncloak hold. sent16: there are unlikely things. sent17: something does not habituate quahog if that it does habituate quahog and it is a kind of a taro is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: that the thumbnail is not unlikely is true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the thumbnail is not cardinal or not a dacite or both it is not unlikely.

if the thumbnail is not cardinal or not a dacite or both it is not unlikely.

the thumbnail is not a kind of a cardinal and/or it is not a dacite.

the peridot does not reissue Argyroxiphium.

sent1: the commissionaire unmans privilege. sent2: the commissionaire does not reissue hyperactivity but it is a liverwort if the peridot is a SSA. sent3: the commissionaire is not a SSA but it does unman privilege. sent4: that something does not reissue Argyroxiphium but it unmans privilege if it is imperialistic is not wrong. sent5: if the neurasthenic does not reissue Argyroxiphium but it unmans privilege the peridot unmans privilege. sent6: the commissionaire does not reissue Argyroxiphium. sent7: the commissionaire is not a vandyke but it does habituate tiepin. sent8: if the commissionaire is not a SSA then the peridot reissues Argyroxiphium. sent9: if that something is not an understatement but it is beakless is not correct then it is imperialistic. sent10: the peridot unmans privilege.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: {A}{b} -> (¬{DP}{a} & {DB}{a}) sent3: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent5: (¬{C}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{a} sent7: (¬{DK}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent10: {B}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the commissionaire does not reissue hyperactivity and is a liverwort.

(¬{DP}{a} & {DB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the peridot does not reissue Argyroxiphium. ; $context$ = sent1: the commissionaire unmans privilege. sent2: the commissionaire does not reissue hyperactivity but it is a liverwort if the peridot is a SSA. sent3: the commissionaire is not a SSA but it does unman privilege. sent4: that something does not reissue Argyroxiphium but it unmans privilege if it is imperialistic is not wrong. sent5: if the neurasthenic does not reissue Argyroxiphium but it unmans privilege the peridot unmans privilege. sent6: the commissionaire does not reissue Argyroxiphium. sent7: the commissionaire is not a vandyke but it does habituate tiepin. sent8: if the commissionaire is not a SSA then the peridot reissues Argyroxiphium. sent9: if that something is not an understatement but it is beakless is not correct then it is imperialistic. sent10: the peridot unmans privilege. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the commissionaire is not a SSA.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the commissionaire is not a SSA but it does unman privilege.

the commissionaire is not a SSA but it does unman privilege.

if the commissionaire is not a SSA then the peridot reissues Argyroxiphium.

there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer.

sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks.

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

sent1: {B}{b} sent2: {BA}{a} sent3: {D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent4: ({HG}{df} & {A}{df}) sent5: ({DK}{a} & {EM}{a}) sent6: (Ex): {C}x sent7: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent8: {A}{eq} sent9: {D}{b} sent10: (Ex): ({AE}x & {HP}x) sent11: (Ex): {D}x sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: ({BS}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent14: (x): ({GP}x & {AO}x) -> {AC}{ci} sent15: ({BR}{a} & {HN}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ({FO}x & {CH}x) sent17: {C}{hq} sent18: ({D}{j} & {FL}{j}) sent19: (Ex): {B}x sent20: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent21: {B}{a} sent22: (Ex): ({ES}x & {AJ}x) sent23: {DM}{b} sent24: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer. ; $context$ = sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent20 -> int1: the inclinometer is a kind of a abjurer.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the inclinometer is infantile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the inclinometer is infantile and it is a kind of a abjurer.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a sack and is a boatswain.

A sack is a boatswain.

the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain.

there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer.

sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks.

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

sent1: {B}{b} sent2: {BA}{a} sent3: {D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent4: ({HG}{df} & {A}{df}) sent5: ({DK}{a} & {EM}{a}) sent6: (Ex): {C}x sent7: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent8: {A}{eq} sent9: {D}{b} sent10: (Ex): ({AE}x & {HP}x) sent11: (Ex): {D}x sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: ({BS}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent14: (x): ({GP}x & {AO}x) -> {AC}{ci} sent15: ({BR}{a} & {HN}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ({FO}x & {CH}x) sent17: {C}{hq} sent18: ({D}{j} & {FL}{j}) sent19: (Ex): {B}x sent20: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent21: {B}{a} sent22: (Ex): ({ES}x & {AJ}x) sent23: {DM}{b} sent24: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer. ; $context$ = sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent20 -> int1: the inclinometer is a kind of a abjurer.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the inclinometer is infantile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the inclinometer is infantile and it is a kind of a abjurer.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a sack and is a boatswain.

The sack is a boatswain.

if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile.

there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer.

sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks.

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

sent1: {B}{b} sent2: {BA}{a} sent3: {D}{b} -> {D}{a} sent4: ({HG}{df} & {A}{df}) sent5: ({DK}{a} & {EM}{a}) sent6: (Ex): {C}x sent7: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent8: {A}{eq} sent9: {D}{b} sent10: (Ex): ({AE}x & {HP}x) sent11: (Ex): {D}x sent12: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: ({BS}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent14: (x): ({GP}x & {AO}x) -> {AC}{ci} sent15: ({BR}{a} & {HN}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ({FO}x & {CH}x) sent17: {C}{hq} sent18: ({D}{j} & {FL}{j}) sent19: (Ex): {B}x sent20: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent21: {B}{a} sent22: (Ex): ({ES}x & {AJ}x) sent23: {DM}{b} sent24: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a kind of infantile a abjurer. ; $context$ = sent1: that the grenadine is a kind of a boatswain hold. sent2: the fact that the inclinometer is a Stockholm is not false. sent3: if the grenadine is infantile the inclinometer is infantile. sent4: the narcissist habituates radiography and it is a kind of a sack. sent5: the inclinometer is a kind of a one-sixty-fourth and it is unhappy. sent6: there exists something such that it is a abjurer. sent7: the fact that the inclinometer is a abjurer hold if the grenadine is a abjurer. sent8: the Jacobite is a sack. sent9: the grenadine is infantile. sent10: there exists something such that it does unman Beveridge and is syndetic. sent11: there is something such that it is infantile. sent12: something is a sack and is a boatswain. sent13: the grenadine is both a backpack and nonadsorbent. sent14: the yataghan does excrete if something dissipates and it does reissue elasticity. sent15: the inclinometer is a sorbate and a demographic. sent16: there is something such that it does unman voter and is blastomeric. sent17: the pustule is a abjurer. sent18: the borough is a kind of infantile thing that is maxillomandibular. sent19: there is something such that it is a boatswain. sent20: the inclinometer is a abjurer if there exists something such that it is both a sack and a boatswain. sent21: the inclinometer is a boatswain. sent22: that something is a kind of a Service and is not non-axile hold. sent23: the grenadine is an epidural. sent24: there is something such that it sacks. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent20 -> int1: the inclinometer is a kind of a abjurer.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the inclinometer is infantile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the inclinometer is infantile and it is a kind of a abjurer.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a sack and is a boatswain.

It's a sack and it's a boatswain.

the grenadine is infantile.

the attendant occurs.

sent1: the fact that the floriculture does not occur but the nodularness occurs is false. sent2: that if the conjunctivalness does not occur then the attendant does not occur and the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: that not the floriculture but the nodularness happens is false if the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent4: if the habituating Geraint does not occur then the fact that the exfoliation does not occur but the unmanning Latrodectus happens is incorrect. sent5: if that not the exfoliation but the unmanning Latrodectus happens does not hold the exfoliation happens. sent6: the fact that the floriculture happens but the nodularness does not occur is not true. sent7: the fact that the decalescence does not occur but the convecting occurs is wrong if the exfoliation occurs. sent8: that the floriculture and the non-nodularness happens is not correct if the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent9: the decoupage does not occur if that the decoupage happens but the attendant does not occur is incorrect. sent10: that the device does not occur and the protection does not occur is not right. sent11: the accessionalness happens. sent12: the convecting does not occur if that not the decalescence but the convecting occurs does not hold. sent13: the uptownness occurs. sent14: the attendant happens if the fact that that the floriculture does not occur and the nodularness does not occur hold is false. sent15: that the recombinant happens leads to that the habituating Geraint does not occur and the peregrination does not occur. sent16: both the recombinant and the blinking occurs if the lashing does not occur. sent17: that the decoupage occurs and the attendant does not occur is incorrect if the reissuing ophthalmoscope occurs. sent18: the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent19: that the reissuing ophthalmoscope occurs and the conjunctivalness happens is brought about by that the convecting does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{E} & {G}) sent5: ¬(¬{E} & {G}) -> {E} sent6: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent7: {E} -> ¬(¬{F} & {D}) sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: ¬({HJ} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{HJ} sent10: ¬(¬{CH} & ¬{HH}) sent11: {JG} sent12: ¬(¬{F} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent13: {FC} sent14: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent15: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent16: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent17: {A} -> ¬({HJ} & ¬{B}) sent18: ¬{A} sent19: ¬{D} -> ({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the decoupage does not occur.

¬{HJ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the attendant occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the floriculture does not occur but the nodularness occurs is false. sent2: that if the conjunctivalness does not occur then the attendant does not occur and the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: that not the floriculture but the nodularness happens is false if the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent4: if the habituating Geraint does not occur then the fact that the exfoliation does not occur but the unmanning Latrodectus happens is incorrect. sent5: if that not the exfoliation but the unmanning Latrodectus happens does not hold the exfoliation happens. sent6: the fact that the floriculture happens but the nodularness does not occur is not true. sent7: the fact that the decalescence does not occur but the convecting occurs is wrong if the exfoliation occurs. sent8: that the floriculture and the non-nodularness happens is not correct if the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent9: the decoupage does not occur if that the decoupage happens but the attendant does not occur is incorrect. sent10: that the device does not occur and the protection does not occur is not right. sent11: the accessionalness happens. sent12: the convecting does not occur if that not the decalescence but the convecting occurs does not hold. sent13: the uptownness occurs. sent14: the attendant happens if the fact that that the floriculture does not occur and the nodularness does not occur hold is false. sent15: that the recombinant happens leads to that the habituating Geraint does not occur and the peregrination does not occur. sent16: both the recombinant and the blinking occurs if the lashing does not occur. sent17: that the decoupage occurs and the attendant does not occur is incorrect if the reissuing ophthalmoscope occurs. sent18: the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur. sent19: that the reissuing ophthalmoscope occurs and the conjunctivalness happens is brought about by that the convecting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that if the conjunctivalness does not occur then the attendant does not occur and the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur is not incorrect.

that if the conjunctivalness does not occur then the attendant does not occur and the reissuing ophthalmoscope does not occur is not incorrect.

the fact that the floriculture does not occur but the nodularness occurs is false.

the khaki is not a abortus.

sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an addressed that is not a converse does not hold then it converse. sent2: if that the voodoo does not habituate voodoo but it is a C-horizon does not hold then the triangle is not a C-horizon. sent3: if something is not a kind of a C-horizon then that it is not a handcar and it does bend does not hold. sent4: the toyon is not archiepiscopal if there exists something such that that it is both not a handcar and a bending does not hold. sent5: the khaki is a abortus if the arousal is not a kind of a abortus. sent6: the frontispiece is not a abortus if there is something such that it is environmental. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is environmental and it is not yogistic is not true the khaki is not a abortus. sent8: that there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is environmental and it is yogistic is not wrong is false hold. sent9: the fact that the voodoo addresses but it does not converse does not hold if something does not addresses. sent10: if there exists something such that it is yogistic the khaki is not a abortus. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a abortus and it is not environmental does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that that it is both environmental and not a abortus is wrong. sent13: there are environmental and non-yogistic things. sent14: there exists something such that it does not address. sent15: if the voodoo is a converse that it does not habituate voodoo and it is a C-horizon is false. sent16: that the fact that the frontispiece is environmental thing that is yogistic is incorrect is not false.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the khaki is a kind of a abortus.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the khaki is not a abortus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an addressed that is not a converse does not hold then it converse. sent2: if that the voodoo does not habituate voodoo but it is a C-horizon does not hold then the triangle is not a C-horizon. sent3: if something is not a kind of a C-horizon then that it is not a handcar and it does bend does not hold. sent4: the toyon is not archiepiscopal if there exists something such that that it is both not a handcar and a bending does not hold. sent5: the khaki is a abortus if the arousal is not a kind of a abortus. sent6: the frontispiece is not a abortus if there is something such that it is environmental. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is environmental and it is not yogistic is not true the khaki is not a abortus. sent8: that there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is environmental and it is yogistic is not wrong is false hold. sent9: the fact that the voodoo addresses but it does not converse does not hold if something does not addresses. sent10: if there exists something such that it is yogistic the khaki is not a abortus. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a abortus and it is not environmental does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that that it is both environmental and not a abortus is wrong. sent13: there are environmental and non-yogistic things. sent14: there exists something such that it does not address. sent15: if the voodoo is a converse that it does not habituate voodoo and it is a C-horizon is false. sent16: that the fact that the frontispiece is environmental thing that is yogistic is incorrect is not false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is environmental and it is yogistic is not wrong is false hold.

that there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is environmental and it is yogistic is not wrong is false hold.

the khaki is a abortus if the arousal is not a kind of a abortus.

something is dactylic and it is a tramcar.

sent1: there is something such that it is dactylic. sent2: the algebraist is concise. sent3: something is a kind of a shy. sent4: the latchkey is dactylic. sent5: the ma is a tramcar. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a ormolu and is a anorchism. sent7: the hagfish is dactylic. sent8: the algebraist is a callowness and is vacuolate. sent9: the nibble is a kind of a tramcar. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of an ophthalmoscope. sent11: the algebraist is a pudendum. sent12: the dill is a tramcar. sent13: the algebraist is hydrodynamics. sent14: that the algebraist is a kind of a tramcar is not incorrect. sent15: the algebraist is unenthusiastic. sent16: the pasang reissues codefendant and is a tramcar. sent17: something is collagenous. sent18: the Portuguese is a kind of a tramcar. sent19: that the algebraist does reissue codefendant is not incorrect. sent20: the algebraist is multilingual. sent21: something is not non-dactylic and is a tramcar if the fact that it is non-sublunar is right.

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

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {U}{a} sent3: (Ex): {CQ}x sent4: {A}{hi} sent5: {B}{ac} sent6: (Ex): ({AF}x & {EG}x) sent7: {A}{hl} sent8: ({JJ}{a} & {IC}{a}) sent9: {B}{an} sent10: (Ex): {DK}x sent11: {IO}{a} sent12: {B}{ek} sent13: {DN}{a} sent14: {B}{a} sent15: {IK}{a} sent16: ({GS}{f} & {B}{f}) sent17: (Ex): {ER}x sent18: {B}{dk} sent19: {GS}{a} sent20: {HL}{a} sent21: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the larcenist is dactylic.

{A}{fk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is dactylic and it is a tramcar. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is dactylic. sent2: the algebraist is concise. sent3: something is a kind of a shy. sent4: the latchkey is dactylic. sent5: the ma is a tramcar. sent6: there is something such that it is a kind of a ormolu and is a anorchism. sent7: the hagfish is dactylic. sent8: the algebraist is a callowness and is vacuolate. sent9: the nibble is a kind of a tramcar. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of an ophthalmoscope. sent11: the algebraist is a pudendum. sent12: the dill is a tramcar. sent13: the algebraist is hydrodynamics. sent14: that the algebraist is a kind of a tramcar is not incorrect. sent15: the algebraist is unenthusiastic. sent16: the pasang reissues codefendant and is a tramcar. sent17: something is collagenous. sent18: the Portuguese is a kind of a tramcar. sent19: that the algebraist does reissue codefendant is not incorrect. sent20: the algebraist is multilingual. sent21: something is not non-dactylic and is a tramcar if the fact that it is non-sublunar is right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of a shy.

something is a kind of a shy.

something is collagenous.

that the Englishman does not unman smothering is not wrong.

sent1: if the tree-frog is not a kind of a precipice then the tenderfoot does not habituate Anthidium. sent2: the tenderfoot is a kind of a case that is not a kind of a wakefulness if the tree-frog is diagonalizable. sent3: the source is not a fishpond and is not naval. sent4: if the source cases the finish unmans smothering. sent5: the tree-frog is not a precipice. sent6: something is marital and it reissues algin if it is not spectral. sent7: the source is a kind of a case that is a wakefulness if there exists something such that the fact that it is not non-diagonalizable is not false. sent8: the Englishman is a kind of a wakefulness if the source is a mastering and not microsomal. sent9: if something does not habituate Anthidium then the fact that the Englishman habituate Anthidium and it does antisepticize foxglove is wrong. sent10: if that the source is not a mastering and it is not microsomal is not false then the Englishman is a wakefulness. sent11: if something is marital it is diagonalizable. sent12: the Englishman is a case. sent13: if the source does not unman smothering then the Englishman does unman smothering. sent14: if the fact that the Englishman does habituate Anthidium and antisepticizes foxglove does not hold then it is not spectral. sent15: if the source is not a mastering and is microsomal the Englishman is a wakefulness. sent16: the Englishman does not unman smothering if it is a case and a wakefulness. sent17: the scapula is not a kind of a wakefulness and it is not choleraic.

¬{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the finish unmans smothering.

{C}{hh}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Englishman does not unman smothering is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tree-frog is not a kind of a precipice then the tenderfoot does not habituate Anthidium. sent2: the tenderfoot is a kind of a case that is not a kind of a wakefulness if the tree-frog is diagonalizable. sent3: the source is not a fishpond and is not naval. sent4: if the source cases the finish unmans smothering. sent5: the tree-frog is not a precipice. sent6: something is marital and it reissues algin if it is not spectral. sent7: the source is a kind of a case that is a wakefulness if there exists something such that the fact that it is not non-diagonalizable is not false. sent8: the Englishman is a kind of a wakefulness if the source is a mastering and not microsomal. sent9: if something does not habituate Anthidium then the fact that the Englishman habituate Anthidium and it does antisepticize foxglove is wrong. sent10: if that the source is not a mastering and it is not microsomal is not false then the Englishman is a wakefulness. sent11: if something is marital it is diagonalizable. sent12: the Englishman is a case. sent13: if the source does not unman smothering then the Englishman does unman smothering. sent14: if the fact that the Englishman does habituate Anthidium and antisepticizes foxglove does not hold then it is not spectral. sent15: if the source is not a mastering and is microsomal the Englishman is a wakefulness. sent16: the Englishman does not unman smothering if it is a case and a wakefulness. sent17: the scapula is not a kind of a wakefulness and it is not choleraic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the source cases the finish unmans smothering.

if the source cases the finish unmans smothering.

something is marital and it reissues algin if it is not spectral.

that the unmanning Dewar does not occur is right.

sent1: that the twin does not occur brings about that the habituating cran and the addictiveness happens. sent2: if the fact that the denudation does not occur is not incorrect then the one-step does not occur and the symbolization occurs. sent3: the reissuing lobotomy happens. sent4: the Miss occurs. sent5: that the unmanning Dewar does not occur is prevented by that the habituating concentrated happens. sent6: the palpableness happens and the spam occurs. sent7: the toppling happens and the unmanning Gongorist occurs. sent8: the unmanning pot occurs and the reissuing twinge happens. sent9: if the fact that not the habituating concentrated but the disobedientness occurs does not hold the devolution occurs. sent10: the habituating concentrated and the disobedientness occurs. sent11: if the irradiation does not occur then that that the electricalness occurs and the disobedientness happens does not hold is not false. sent12: the unmanning Dewar does not occur and the habituating concentrated happens if the disobedientness does not occur. sent13: the reissuing doge happens if the Ambrosianness occurs. sent14: if the irradiation does not occur that the fact that both the non-electricalness and the disobedientness occurs is correct is not true. sent15: that the disobedientness does not occur is true if the fact that the electricalness does not occur but the disobedientness occurs is not true. sent16: the fact that the habituating motet does not occur and the earthiness does not occur is not true if the dipterousness occurs. sent17: the reissuing cool occurs. sent18: if the fact that that the habituating motet does not occur and the earthiness does not occur is right is incorrect the twin does not occur. sent19: the disobedientness occurs. sent20: the avoidance occurs. sent21: the irradiation does not occur and the cryocautery does not occur if the addictiveness happens. sent22: if the one-step does not occur then the venesection and the dipterousness happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent2: ¬{P} -> (¬{N} & {O}) sent3: {BR} sent4: {FT} sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: ({GK} & {DA}) sent7: ({HA} & {JA}) sent8: ({IU} & {EJ}) sent9: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {HM} sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent12: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & {A}) sent13: {AI} -> {FL} sent14: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {B}) sent15: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent16: {L} -> ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent17: {BT} sent18: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent19: {B} sent20: {IO} sent21: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent22: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the unmanning Dewar does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the unmanning Dewar does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the twin does not occur brings about that the habituating cran and the addictiveness happens. sent2: if the fact that the denudation does not occur is not incorrect then the one-step does not occur and the symbolization occurs. sent3: the reissuing lobotomy happens. sent4: the Miss occurs. sent5: that the unmanning Dewar does not occur is prevented by that the habituating concentrated happens. sent6: the palpableness happens and the spam occurs. sent7: the toppling happens and the unmanning Gongorist occurs. sent8: the unmanning pot occurs and the reissuing twinge happens. sent9: if the fact that not the habituating concentrated but the disobedientness occurs does not hold the devolution occurs. sent10: the habituating concentrated and the disobedientness occurs. sent11: if the irradiation does not occur then that that the electricalness occurs and the disobedientness happens does not hold is not false. sent12: the unmanning Dewar does not occur and the habituating concentrated happens if the disobedientness does not occur. sent13: the reissuing doge happens if the Ambrosianness occurs. sent14: if the irradiation does not occur that the fact that both the non-electricalness and the disobedientness occurs is correct is not true. sent15: that the disobedientness does not occur is true if the fact that the electricalness does not occur but the disobedientness occurs is not true. sent16: the fact that the habituating motet does not occur and the earthiness does not occur is not true if the dipterousness occurs. sent17: the reissuing cool occurs. sent18: if the fact that that the habituating motet does not occur and the earthiness does not occur is right is incorrect the twin does not occur. sent19: the disobedientness occurs. sent20: the avoidance occurs. sent21: the irradiation does not occur and the cryocautery does not occur if the addictiveness happens. sent22: if the one-step does not occur then the venesection and the dipterousness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the habituating concentrated occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the habituating concentrated and the disobedientness occurs.

the habituating concentrated and the disobedientness occurs.

that the unmanning Dewar does not occur is prevented by that the habituating concentrated happens.

the unmanning beachwear happens.

sent1: if the fact that the habituating Friday or the bust-up or both occurs is false the reissuing airdock does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the reissuing airdock does not occur is not false then the fact that the strangeness happens and the unmanning beachwear happens does not hold. sent3: that the strangeness happens is not false if the unmanning beachwear occurs. sent4: the strangeness and the unmanning beachwear occurs if the reissuing airdock does not occur. sent5: the revival does not occur if the fact that the strangeness and the unmanning beachwear occurs is not right. sent6: that the strangeness does not occur but the reissuing airdock happens is right. sent7: the pacification does not occur if that the universalisticness does not occur and the unmanning nebule happens is incorrect. sent8: if the pacification does not occur that either the habituating Friday occurs or the bust-up happens or both does not hold. sent9: the reissuing airdock happens. sent10: the fact that the reissuing airdock does not occur is correct if that the habituating Friday occurs and the bust-up happens is not correct. sent11: the fact that the selection does not occur is right.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the unmanning beachwear happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unmanning beachwear happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the habituating Friday or the bust-up or both occurs is false the reissuing airdock does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the reissuing airdock does not occur is not false then the fact that the strangeness happens and the unmanning beachwear happens does not hold. sent3: that the strangeness happens is not false if the unmanning beachwear occurs. sent4: the strangeness and the unmanning beachwear occurs if the reissuing airdock does not occur. sent5: the revival does not occur if the fact that the strangeness and the unmanning beachwear occurs is not right. sent6: that the strangeness does not occur but the reissuing airdock happens is right. sent7: the pacification does not occur if that the universalisticness does not occur and the unmanning nebule happens is incorrect. sent8: if the pacification does not occur that either the habituating Friday occurs or the bust-up happens or both does not hold. sent9: the reissuing airdock happens. sent10: the fact that the reissuing airdock does not occur is correct if that the habituating Friday occurs and the bust-up happens is not correct. sent11: the fact that the selection does not occur is right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unmanning beachwear happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the strangeness happens.; sent6 -> int2: the strangeness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the strangeness happens is not false if the unmanning beachwear occurs.

that the strangeness happens is not false if the unmanning beachwear occurs.

that the strangeness does not occur but the reissuing airdock happens is right.

the coagulase is not nonmagnetic.

sent1: something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates. sent2: the Guyanese is nasopharyngeal if it is artful. sent3: the pawl is not nonmagnetic. sent4: if the Jacobite is a inessential then the coagulase is not a kind of an act. sent5: the coagulase decimates and/or is a kind of an act. sent6: the coagulase either is extrasensory or is a scoffer or both. sent7: if something does decimate that it is not magnetic is not incorrect. sent8: if the coagulase is an act it is not nonmagnetic. sent9: if the fact that the coagulase is nonmagnetic is correct then it is not calendric. sent10: if the coagulase does decimate then it is nonmagnetic.

¬{C}{aa}

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: {BB}{fh} -> {CT}{fh} sent3: ¬{C}{dc} sent4: {D}{a} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ({A}{aa} v {B}{aa}) sent6: ({FR}{aa} v {HT}{aa}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent9: {C}{aa} -> ¬{FC}{aa} sent10: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the coagulase is nonmagnetic.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coagulase is not nonmagnetic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates. sent2: the Guyanese is nasopharyngeal if it is artful. sent3: the pawl is not nonmagnetic. sent4: if the Jacobite is a inessential then the coagulase is not a kind of an act. sent5: the coagulase decimates and/or is a kind of an act. sent6: the coagulase either is extrasensory or is a scoffer or both. sent7: if something does decimate that it is not magnetic is not incorrect. sent8: if the coagulase is an act it is not nonmagnetic. sent9: if the fact that the coagulase is nonmagnetic is correct then it is not calendric. sent10: if the coagulase does decimate then it is nonmagnetic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the coagulase decimates that it is not nonmagnetic is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates.

If it decimates, something is nonmagnetic.

the coagulase decimates and/or is a kind of an act.

the coagulase is not nonmagnetic.

sent1: something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates. sent2: the Guyanese is nasopharyngeal if it is artful. sent3: the pawl is not nonmagnetic. sent4: if the Jacobite is a inessential then the coagulase is not a kind of an act. sent5: the coagulase decimates and/or is a kind of an act. sent6: the coagulase either is extrasensory or is a scoffer or both. sent7: if something does decimate that it is not magnetic is not incorrect. sent8: if the coagulase is an act it is not nonmagnetic. sent9: if the fact that the coagulase is nonmagnetic is correct then it is not calendric. sent10: if the coagulase does decimate then it is nonmagnetic.

¬{C}{aa}

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: {BB}{fh} -> {CT}{fh} sent3: ¬{C}{dc} sent4: {D}{a} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ({A}{aa} v {B}{aa}) sent6: ({FR}{aa} v {HT}{aa}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent9: {C}{aa} -> ¬{FC}{aa} sent10: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the coagulase is nonmagnetic.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coagulase is not nonmagnetic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates. sent2: the Guyanese is nasopharyngeal if it is artful. sent3: the pawl is not nonmagnetic. sent4: if the Jacobite is a inessential then the coagulase is not a kind of an act. sent5: the coagulase decimates and/or is a kind of an act. sent6: the coagulase either is extrasensory or is a scoffer or both. sent7: if something does decimate that it is not magnetic is not incorrect. sent8: if the coagulase is an act it is not nonmagnetic. sent9: if the fact that the coagulase is nonmagnetic is correct then it is not calendric. sent10: if the coagulase does decimate then it is nonmagnetic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the coagulase decimates that it is not nonmagnetic is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not nonmagnetic if it decimates.

If it decimates, something is not nonmagnetic.

if the coagulase is an act it is not nonmagnetic.

the moneymaker is not nonsectarian.

sent1: the milkwagon is a Streptosolen and it is resinlike. sent2: the moneymaker is not arbitrary. sent3: the Quapaw is not nonsectarian. sent4: the moneymaker is not a quoits. sent5: if the holmium is nonsectarian the moneymaker is nonsectarian. sent6: the balance is not a quoits. sent7: the broadbill is sectarian. sent8: the plaice is not a district but it is an annoyance if there is something such that it is immunocompetent. sent9: if that the moneymaker is a quoits is not false the single-leaf is not a kind of a skinned. sent10: if the moneymaker is not anorectal but it is Alpine then it is not a quoits. sent11: the milkwagon is immunocompetent if it is a Streptosolen. sent12: the moneymaker skins. sent13: if the moneymaker is not a quoits and does skin it is not nonsectarian. sent14: if that the holmium is not a kind of a quoits and/or it does not habituate radiobiology is not right the fact that the moneymaker is a quoits is not incorrect. sent15: the mortgagee is not nonsectarian. sent16: the moneymaker is not a quoits if it does not habituate radiobiology and it is nonrepetitive.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ({H}{d} & {I}{d}) sent2: ¬{CR}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{jc} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{gg} sent7: ¬{C}{r} sent8: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{al} sent10: (¬{IO}{a} & {JJ}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: {H}{d} -> {G}{d} sent12: {B}{a} sent13: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent15: ¬{C}{gu} sent16: (¬{D}{a} & {FA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the moneymaker is nonsectarian.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moneymaker is not nonsectarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the milkwagon is a Streptosolen and it is resinlike. sent2: the moneymaker is not arbitrary. sent3: the Quapaw is not nonsectarian. sent4: the moneymaker is not a quoits. sent5: if the holmium is nonsectarian the moneymaker is nonsectarian. sent6: the balance is not a quoits. sent7: the broadbill is sectarian. sent8: the plaice is not a district but it is an annoyance if there is something such that it is immunocompetent. sent9: if that the moneymaker is a quoits is not false the single-leaf is not a kind of a skinned. sent10: if the moneymaker is not anorectal but it is Alpine then it is not a quoits. sent11: the milkwagon is immunocompetent if it is a Streptosolen. sent12: the moneymaker skins. sent13: if the moneymaker is not a quoits and does skin it is not nonsectarian. sent14: if that the holmium is not a kind of a quoits and/or it does not habituate radiobiology is not right the fact that the moneymaker is a quoits is not incorrect. sent15: the mortgagee is not nonsectarian. sent16: the moneymaker is not a quoits if it does not habituate radiobiology and it is nonrepetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the moneymaker is not a quoits but a skinned.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the moneymaker is not a quoits.

The moneymaker isn't a quoits.

the moneymaker skins.

the moneymaker is not nonsectarian.

sent1: the milkwagon is a Streptosolen and it is resinlike. sent2: the moneymaker is not arbitrary. sent3: the Quapaw is not nonsectarian. sent4: the moneymaker is not a quoits. sent5: if the holmium is nonsectarian the moneymaker is nonsectarian. sent6: the balance is not a quoits. sent7: the broadbill is sectarian. sent8: the plaice is not a district but it is an annoyance if there is something such that it is immunocompetent. sent9: if that the moneymaker is a quoits is not false the single-leaf is not a kind of a skinned. sent10: if the moneymaker is not anorectal but it is Alpine then it is not a quoits. sent11: the milkwagon is immunocompetent if it is a Streptosolen. sent12: the moneymaker skins. sent13: if the moneymaker is not a quoits and does skin it is not nonsectarian. sent14: if that the holmium is not a kind of a quoits and/or it does not habituate radiobiology is not right the fact that the moneymaker is a quoits is not incorrect. sent15: the mortgagee is not nonsectarian. sent16: the moneymaker is not a quoits if it does not habituate radiobiology and it is nonrepetitive.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ({H}{d} & {I}{d}) sent2: ¬{CR}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{jc} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent6: ¬{A}{gg} sent7: ¬{C}{r} sent8: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{al} sent10: (¬{IO}{a} & {JJ}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: {H}{d} -> {G}{d} sent12: {B}{a} sent13: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent15: ¬{C}{gu} sent16: (¬{D}{a} & {FA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the moneymaker is nonsectarian.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moneymaker is not nonsectarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the milkwagon is a Streptosolen and it is resinlike. sent2: the moneymaker is not arbitrary. sent3: the Quapaw is not nonsectarian. sent4: the moneymaker is not a quoits. sent5: if the holmium is nonsectarian the moneymaker is nonsectarian. sent6: the balance is not a quoits. sent7: the broadbill is sectarian. sent8: the plaice is not a district but it is an annoyance if there is something such that it is immunocompetent. sent9: if that the moneymaker is a quoits is not false the single-leaf is not a kind of a skinned. sent10: if the moneymaker is not anorectal but it is Alpine then it is not a quoits. sent11: the milkwagon is immunocompetent if it is a Streptosolen. sent12: the moneymaker skins. sent13: if the moneymaker is not a quoits and does skin it is not nonsectarian. sent14: if that the holmium is not a kind of a quoits and/or it does not habituate radiobiology is not right the fact that the moneymaker is a quoits is not incorrect. sent15: the mortgagee is not nonsectarian. sent16: the moneymaker is not a quoits if it does not habituate radiobiology and it is nonrepetitive. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent12 -> int1: the moneymaker is not a quoits but a skinned.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the moneymaker is not a quoits.

The moneymaker is a different type of person.

if the moneymaker is not a quoits and does skin it is not nonsectarian.

that the nalorphine is a kind of a peak and intersects does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the bathhouse does equivocate and it does unman Grainger is not correct if it is not pyretic. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Genoese and it does not unman Grainger hold is false if it is non-basal. sent3: the nalorphine does not unman Grainger. sent4: if that the starer is basal and is a stuffiness is not correct the nalorphine is not basal. sent5: if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese. sent6: that something is a kind of a mold and it is no-go is incorrect if it does not joke. sent7: the Weld does profile and it is a classical if it is not a cymbalist. sent8: that the fact that the nickel is not a kind of a stuffiness but it is not nonclassical is not wrong is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a cymbalist. sent9: the kestrel is not a peak. sent10: the nalorphine does not act. sent11: the fact that the nalorphine does automobile and habituates liveryman is false. sent12: the liveryman does not intersect. sent13: something is not a kind of a profiling and is basal if it is not a classical. sent14: there exists something such that it is a cymbalist. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it unmans Grainger and is not a kind of a peak is wrong then the nalorphine does peak. sent16: if the starer is not a profiling then the fact that it unmans Grainger and it does not peak is wrong. sent17: if the nalorphine is not pyrotechnic it does not unman Grainger. sent18: something is a peak if that it is non-Genoese thing that does not unman Grainger is not correct. sent19: if the Weld is a kind of a Genoese then that the nalorphine does intersect is right. sent20: the fact that something peaks and intersects is not true if it is not Genoese. sent21: The Grainger does not unman nalorphine. sent22: the nalorphine does intersect if the Weld is a profiling. sent23: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a stuffiness and it is a classical hold is not right the starer is not a kind of a classical.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: ¬{AJ}{br} -> ¬({GC}{br} & {A}{br}) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{DD}x -> ¬({IO}x & {DF}x) sent7: ¬{I}{b} -> ({E}{b} & {G}{b}) sent8: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent9: ¬{C}{ip} sent10: ¬{DO}{a} sent11: ¬({GS}{a} & {FT}{a}) sent12: ¬{D}{du} sent13: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x & {F}x) sent14: (Ex): {I}x sent15: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent16: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent17: ¬{CU}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent19: {B}{b} -> {D}{a} sent20: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {D}x) sent21: ¬{AA}{aa} sent22: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent23: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the nalorphine is a peak and it does intersect.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the nalorphine is a kind of a peak and intersects does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bathhouse does equivocate and it does unman Grainger is not correct if it is not pyretic. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Genoese and it does not unman Grainger hold is false if it is non-basal. sent3: the nalorphine does not unman Grainger. sent4: if that the starer is basal and is a stuffiness is not correct the nalorphine is not basal. sent5: if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese. sent6: that something is a kind of a mold and it is no-go is incorrect if it does not joke. sent7: the Weld does profile and it is a classical if it is not a cymbalist. sent8: that the fact that the nickel is not a kind of a stuffiness but it is not nonclassical is not wrong is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a cymbalist. sent9: the kestrel is not a peak. sent10: the nalorphine does not act. sent11: the fact that the nalorphine does automobile and habituates liveryman is false. sent12: the liveryman does not intersect. sent13: something is not a kind of a profiling and is basal if it is not a classical. sent14: there exists something such that it is a cymbalist. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it unmans Grainger and is not a kind of a peak is wrong then the nalorphine does peak. sent16: if the starer is not a profiling then the fact that it unmans Grainger and it does not peak is wrong. sent17: if the nalorphine is not pyrotechnic it does not unman Grainger. sent18: something is a peak if that it is non-Genoese thing that does not unman Grainger is not correct. sent19: if the Weld is a kind of a Genoese then that the nalorphine does intersect is right. sent20: the fact that something peaks and intersects is not true if it is not Genoese. sent21: The Grainger does not unman nalorphine. sent22: the nalorphine does intersect if the Weld is a profiling. sent23: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a stuffiness and it is a classical hold is not right the starer is not a kind of a classical. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the nalorphine is not Genoese.; sent20 -> int2: the fact that the nalorphine is a peak and does intersect is incorrect if the fact that it is not a Genoese is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese.

The fact that the nalorphine does not unmange is not wrong.

the nalorphine does not unman Grainger.

that the nalorphine is a kind of a peak and intersects does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the bathhouse does equivocate and it does unman Grainger is not correct if it is not pyretic. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Genoese and it does not unman Grainger hold is false if it is non-basal. sent3: the nalorphine does not unman Grainger. sent4: if that the starer is basal and is a stuffiness is not correct the nalorphine is not basal. sent5: if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese. sent6: that something is a kind of a mold and it is no-go is incorrect if it does not joke. sent7: the Weld does profile and it is a classical if it is not a cymbalist. sent8: that the fact that the nickel is not a kind of a stuffiness but it is not nonclassical is not wrong is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a cymbalist. sent9: the kestrel is not a peak. sent10: the nalorphine does not act. sent11: the fact that the nalorphine does automobile and habituates liveryman is false. sent12: the liveryman does not intersect. sent13: something is not a kind of a profiling and is basal if it is not a classical. sent14: there exists something such that it is a cymbalist. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it unmans Grainger and is not a kind of a peak is wrong then the nalorphine does peak. sent16: if the starer is not a profiling then the fact that it unmans Grainger and it does not peak is wrong. sent17: if the nalorphine is not pyrotechnic it does not unman Grainger. sent18: something is a peak if that it is non-Genoese thing that does not unman Grainger is not correct. sent19: if the Weld is a kind of a Genoese then that the nalorphine does intersect is right. sent20: the fact that something peaks and intersects is not true if it is not Genoese. sent21: The Grainger does not unman nalorphine. sent22: the nalorphine does intersect if the Weld is a profiling. sent23: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a stuffiness and it is a classical hold is not right the starer is not a kind of a classical.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

sent1: ¬{AJ}{br} -> ¬({GC}{br} & {A}{br}) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{DD}x -> ¬({IO}x & {DF}x) sent7: ¬{I}{b} -> ({E}{b} & {G}{b}) sent8: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent9: ¬{C}{ip} sent10: ¬{DO}{a} sent11: ¬({GS}{a} & {FT}{a}) sent12: ¬{D}{du} sent13: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x & {F}x) sent14: (Ex): {I}x sent15: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent16: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent17: ¬{CU}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent19: {B}{b} -> {D}{a} sent20: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}x & {D}x) sent21: ¬{AA}{aa} sent22: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent23: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the nalorphine is a peak and it does intersect.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the nalorphine is a kind of a peak and intersects does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bathhouse does equivocate and it does unman Grainger is not correct if it is not pyretic. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a Genoese and it does not unman Grainger hold is false if it is non-basal. sent3: the nalorphine does not unman Grainger. sent4: if that the starer is basal and is a stuffiness is not correct the nalorphine is not basal. sent5: if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese. sent6: that something is a kind of a mold and it is no-go is incorrect if it does not joke. sent7: the Weld does profile and it is a classical if it is not a cymbalist. sent8: that the fact that the nickel is not a kind of a stuffiness but it is not nonclassical is not wrong is not correct if there exists something such that it is a kind of a cymbalist. sent9: the kestrel is not a peak. sent10: the nalorphine does not act. sent11: the fact that the nalorphine does automobile and habituates liveryman is false. sent12: the liveryman does not intersect. sent13: something is not a kind of a profiling and is basal if it is not a classical. sent14: there exists something such that it is a cymbalist. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it unmans Grainger and is not a kind of a peak is wrong then the nalorphine does peak. sent16: if the starer is not a profiling then the fact that it unmans Grainger and it does not peak is wrong. sent17: if the nalorphine is not pyrotechnic it does not unman Grainger. sent18: something is a peak if that it is non-Genoese thing that does not unman Grainger is not correct. sent19: if the Weld is a kind of a Genoese then that the nalorphine does intersect is right. sent20: the fact that something peaks and intersects is not true if it is not Genoese. sent21: The Grainger does not unman nalorphine. sent22: the nalorphine does intersect if the Weld is a profiling. sent23: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a stuffiness and it is a classical hold is not right the starer is not a kind of a classical. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the nalorphine is not Genoese.; sent20 -> int2: the fact that the nalorphine is a peak and does intersect is incorrect if the fact that it is not a Genoese is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nalorphine does not unman Grainger is not wrong it is not Genoese.

The fact that the nalorphine does not unmanoeuvre is not wrong.

the fact that something peaks and intersects is not true if it is not Genoese.

the tovarich is not a platoon.

sent1: the tovarich is not a cupbearer. sent2: there is something such that that it is a platoon and it is a adnexa does not hold. sent3: that something does reissue Cyprinodontidae hold. sent4: something is vigesimal. sent5: if that something is polytheistic hold then it is not a kind of a bronchiole. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a atrazine but a adnexa. sent7: if that something is not a atrazine is not false the fact that the fluff is not a platoon but it is not non-binoculars is not correct. sent8: that something is both not a adnexa and not binoculars is right if it is not an oolong. sent9: there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent11: the fact that the fluff is not a platoon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a adnexa and it is not non-binoculars is not true is correct. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a atrazine and it is a adnexa does not hold then the fieldworker is not binoculars. sent13: if the fieldworker is not binoculars then the tovarich is not a platoon. sent14: if something is not a bronchiole that it is non-wetting thing that is an enthusiasm is not right. sent15: something is a platoon. sent16: that the fluff is a kind of a bronchiole and is a platoon does not hold. sent17: if the fact that the fluff is not a atrazine but it does reissue Cyprinodontidae is wrong then the tovarich is a platoon. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not binoculars is not wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae the fact that the fluff is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong. sent21: there is something such that it does habituate Spain.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tovarich is a platoon.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tovarich is not a platoon. ; $context$ = sent1: the tovarich is not a cupbearer. sent2: there is something such that that it is a platoon and it is a adnexa does not hold. sent3: that something does reissue Cyprinodontidae hold. sent4: something is vigesimal. sent5: if that something is polytheistic hold then it is not a kind of a bronchiole. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a atrazine but a adnexa. sent7: if that something is not a atrazine is not false the fact that the fluff is not a platoon but it is not non-binoculars is not correct. sent8: that something is both not a adnexa and not binoculars is right if it is not an oolong. sent9: there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent11: the fact that the fluff is not a platoon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a adnexa and it is not non-binoculars is not true is correct. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a atrazine and it is a adnexa does not hold then the fieldworker is not binoculars. sent13: if the fieldworker is not binoculars then the tovarich is not a platoon. sent14: if something is not a bronchiole that it is non-wetting thing that is an enthusiasm is not right. sent15: something is a platoon. sent16: that the fluff is a kind of a bronchiole and is a platoon does not hold. sent17: if the fact that the fluff is not a atrazine but it does reissue Cyprinodontidae is wrong then the tovarich is a platoon. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not binoculars is not wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae the fact that the fluff is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong. sent21: there is something such that it does habituate Spain. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong.

if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong.

if the fieldworker is not binoculars then the tovarich is not a platoon.

the sermon happens and the chauvinisticness occurs.

sent1: the sermon and the execration happens if that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur hold. sent2: if the fact that the pricking and the digitigradeness occurs does not hold then the fact that the pricking does not occur hold. sent3: both the burgeoning and the weatherliness occurs. sent4: the chauvinisticness happens and the reconsideration occurs. sent5: that the prick occurs and the digitigrade occurs does not hold if the Assameseness does not occur. sent6: if the unrentableness occurs then the telecast does not occur and the metrification does not occur. sent7: the lobectomy and the jest happens if the prick does not occur. sent8: if the unmanning Cassandra does not occur that the sermon occurs and the chauvinisticness occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the lobectomy happens then the unrentableness occurs. sent10: that the metrification does not occur brings about that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur and the reconsideration does not occur. sent11: both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens.

({A} & {C})

sent1: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {HM}) sent2: ¬({J} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ({HP} & {FM}) sent4: ({C} & {D}) sent5: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {L}) sent6: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent7: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent9: {H} -> {G} sent10: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent11: ({A} & {B})

PROVED

PROVED

the execration happens.

{HM}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sermon happens and the chauvinisticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the sermon and the execration happens if that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur hold. sent2: if the fact that the pricking and the digitigradeness occurs does not hold then the fact that the pricking does not occur hold. sent3: both the burgeoning and the weatherliness occurs. sent4: the chauvinisticness happens and the reconsideration occurs. sent5: that the prick occurs and the digitigrade occurs does not hold if the Assameseness does not occur. sent6: if the unrentableness occurs then the telecast does not occur and the metrification does not occur. sent7: the lobectomy and the jest happens if the prick does not occur. sent8: if the unmanning Cassandra does not occur that the sermon occurs and the chauvinisticness occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the lobectomy happens then the unrentableness occurs. sent10: that the metrification does not occur brings about that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur and the reconsideration does not occur. sent11: both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the sermon happens.; sent4 -> int2: the chauvinisticness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens.

both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens.

the chauvinisticness happens and the reconsideration occurs.

the tulipwood is a Laius.

sent1: the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan. sent2: the fact that something is not macerative but multilingual is false if it is not a kind of a heating. sent3: The bat does not habituate flexor. sent4: if the flexor is sane thing that is not nonproprietary then the tulipwood is a Laius. sent5: the flexor is not a kind of a diocesan. sent6: that something is not Hemingwayesque but it does habituate bat is not right if it is not multilingual. sent7: if the flexor does not habituate bat it is not insane. sent8: something is not a kind of a Laius if the fact that it is not Hemingwayesque and it does habituate bat does not hold. sent9: the tulipwood does habituate bat. sent10: the flexor is sane but it is not nonproprietary if it does not habituate bat.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the tulipwood is not a kind of a Laius is correct.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tulipwood is a Laius. ; $context$ = sent1: the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan. sent2: the fact that something is not macerative but multilingual is false if it is not a kind of a heating. sent3: The bat does not habituate flexor. sent4: if the flexor is sane thing that is not nonproprietary then the tulipwood is a Laius. sent5: the flexor is not a kind of a diocesan. sent6: that something is not Hemingwayesque but it does habituate bat is not right if it is not multilingual. sent7: if the flexor does not habituate bat it is not insane. sent8: something is not a kind of a Laius if the fact that it is not Hemingwayesque and it does habituate bat does not hold. sent9: the tulipwood does habituate bat. sent10: the flexor is sane but it is not nonproprietary if it does not habituate bat. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan.

the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan.

if the flexor is sane thing that is not nonproprietary then the tulipwood is a Laius.

the crowing does not occur.

sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crowing occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crowing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the antisepticizing fanlight happens.; sent1 -> int2: the cryptography happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs.

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

both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs.

the crowing does not occur.

sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crowing occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crowing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the antisepticizing fanlight happens.; sent1 -> int2: the cryptography happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs.

The fanlight is antiseptic.

if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur.

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold.

sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma does not hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness and/or it is not a Shakespearian does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that either it does not unman jitteriness or it is not a kind of a Shakespearian or both is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide is not a kind of a sarcoma.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not tribal.

There is something that is not tribal.

the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things.

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold.

sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma does not hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness and/or it is not a Shakespearian does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that either it does not unman jitteriness or it is not a kind of a Shakespearian or both is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide is not a kind of a sarcoma.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not tribal.

It is not tribal.

something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right.

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold.

sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma does not hold.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness and/or it is not a Shakespearian does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that either it does not unman jitteriness or it is not a kind of a Shakespearian or both is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide is not a kind of a sarcoma.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not tribal.

There is something that makes it seem like it is not tribal.

if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma.

the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet.

sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.

(¬{C}{d} & {E}{d})

sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{C}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the asp does not habituate commissariat.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat.

The asp doesn't habituate cheat if the bill doesn't habituate it.

the bill does not habituate cheat.

the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet.

sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.

(¬{C}{d} & {E}{d})

sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{C}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the asp does not habituate commissariat.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat.

The asp does not habituate cheat if the bill does not habituate it.

if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.

the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet.

sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.

(¬{C}{d} & {E}{d})

sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{C}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the asp does not habituate commissariat.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat.

The asp does not habituate cheat if the bill doesn't habituate it.

if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet.

the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct.

sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: ¬(¬{CN} & {II}) sent2: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {BF} sent3: ¬({FE} & ¬{JJ}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬{D} sent6: ¬{IU} -> {BL} sent7: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬({DJ} & ¬{AE}) sent9: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the reissuing hold occurs.

{BF}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that not the asyndeticness but the telling occurs is wrong.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the signal happens.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the signal does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs.

The signal occurs if the telling and non-asyndeticness are false.

the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true.

the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct.

sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: ¬(¬{CN} & {II}) sent2: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {BF} sent3: ¬({FE} & ¬{JJ}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬{D} sent6: ¬{IU} -> {BL} sent7: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬({DJ} & ¬{AE}) sent9: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the reissuing hold occurs.

{BF}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that not the asyndeticness but the telling occurs is wrong.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the signal happens.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the signal does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs.

The signal occurs if both the telling and non-asyndeticness are false.

that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong.

the MPS is a Eusebius.

sent1: the jerk does not unman mortification. sent2: the jerk does unman silicone. sent3: the fact that the jerk does not antisepticize Lange is not incorrect. sent4: something does not habituate calorimeter and is a mechanization if it is a merit. sent5: if something is a gestation and not agreeable it is a Eusebius. sent6: the MPS does not unman silicone and is not agreeable if the jerk is a kind of a Eusebius. sent7: if that the MPS is not agreeable is wrong then the jerk is not a Eusebius. sent8: if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius. sent9: if the jerk does not antisepticize Lange it is a merit and it is capitular. sent10: the jerk is agreeable. sent11: the MPS does not unman silicone. sent12: the MPS is agreeable.

{AB}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the rheumatologist is agreeable.

{A}{ff}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the MPS is a Eusebius. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerk does not unman mortification. sent2: the jerk does unman silicone. sent3: the fact that the jerk does not antisepticize Lange is not incorrect. sent4: something does not habituate calorimeter and is a mechanization if it is a merit. sent5: if something is a gestation and not agreeable it is a Eusebius. sent6: the MPS does not unman silicone and is not agreeable if the jerk is a kind of a Eusebius. sent7: if that the MPS is not agreeable is wrong then the jerk is not a Eusebius. sent8: if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius. sent9: if the jerk does not antisepticize Lange it is a merit and it is capitular. sent10: the jerk is agreeable. sent11: the MPS does not unman silicone. sent12: the MPS is agreeable. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent10 -> int1: the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a kind of a Eusebius.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius.

if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius.

the jerk is agreeable.

the test is a ministrant.

sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin.

{E}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: {H}{e} -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent4: ¬{E}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ¬{CR}{a} sent13: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent14: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> {I}{e} sent16: (¬{A}{ej} & {GE}{ej}) sent17: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent18: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent19: (x): ({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent20: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent21: ¬{C}{a} sent22: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: (¬{GD}{a} & {AC}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the prince's-plume is not Libyan.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the test is a ministrant. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the prince's-plume is not a kind of a Portuguese.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the test is non-Libyan thing that is not a Shari.; sent5 -> int3: if the test is both not Libyan and not a Shari then it is not a kind of a ministrant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow.

The prince's Plume is non-Portuguese and a vow.

the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese.

the test is a ministrant.

sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin.

{E}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: {H}{e} -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent4: ¬{E}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ¬{CR}{a} sent13: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent14: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> {I}{e} sent16: (¬{A}{ej} & {GE}{ej}) sent17: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent18: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent19: (x): ({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent20: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent21: ¬{C}{a} sent22: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: (¬{GD}{a} & {AC}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the prince's-plume is not Libyan.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the test is a ministrant. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the prince's-plume is not a kind of a Portuguese.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the test is non-Libyan thing that is not a Shari.; sent5 -> int3: if the test is both not Libyan and not a Shari then it is not a kind of a ministrant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow.

The prince's Plume is neither Portuguese nor a vow.

if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant.

that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect.

sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent5: ¬{H} sent6: {GA} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({AA} & {A}) sent11: ({G} & ¬{CO}) -> {D} sent12: ({FF} & ¬{HE}) -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the spur occurs and the legitimating does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spurring occurs and the legitimating does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the unmanning crook happens.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the unmanning crook does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens.

The unmanning crook is caused by the spurring but not the legitimating.

the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false.

that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect.

sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent5: ¬{H} sent6: {GA} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({AA} & {A}) sent11: ({G} & ¬{CO}) -> {D} sent12: ({FF} & ¬{HE}) -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the spur occurs and the legitimating does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spurring occurs and the legitimating does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the unmanning crook happens.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the unmanning crook does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens.

The spurring causes the unmanning crook, but not the legitimating.

the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold.

that the dovetail is nonconductive is true.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective.

{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dovetail is not nonconductive.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the dovetail is nonconductive is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the columbine is unprotective and/or is not a hare.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the sleeve is clonic.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong.

The columbine is not a hare.

the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both.

that the dovetail is nonconductive is true.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective.

{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dovetail is not nonconductive.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the dovetail is nonconductive is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the columbine is unprotective and/or is not a hare.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the sleeve is clonic.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong.

That the columbine is not a hare is not incorrect.

if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive.

the fusion is not a Macedonian.

sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{al} sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {C}{a} -> {GP}{a} sent5: {DQ}{a} -> {A}{a} sent6: (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {HC}{io} sent7: {HG}{a} sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: {C}{bo} sent11: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the colophon is lipless and it rehabilitates.

({HC}{io} & {GJ}{io})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fusion is not a Macedonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman.

If the fusion does not unman it.

the fusion does unman liquidity.

the fusion is not a Macedonian.

sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{al} sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {C}{a} -> {GP}{a} sent5: {DQ}{a} -> {A}{a} sent6: (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {HC}{io} sent7: {HG}{a} sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: {C}{bo} sent11: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the colophon is lipless and it rehabilitates.

({HC}{io} & {GJ}{io})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fusion is not a Macedonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman.

If the fusion does unman, it doesn't vestryman.

the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic.

the fusion is not a Macedonian.

sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{al} sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {C}{a} -> {GP}{a} sent5: {DQ}{a} -> {A}{a} sent6: (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {HC}{io} sent7: {HG}{a} sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: {C}{bo} sent11: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the colophon is lipless and it rehabilitates.

({HC}{io} & {GJ}{io})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fusion is not a Macedonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman.

If the fusion does not work, it does not vestryman.

the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold.

the fusion is not a Macedonian.

sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{al} sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {C}{a} -> {GP}{a} sent5: {DQ}{a} -> {A}{a} sent6: (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {HC}{io} sent7: {HG}{a} sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: {C}{bo} sent11: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the colophon is lipless and it rehabilitates.

({HC}{io} & {GJ}{io})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fusion is not a Macedonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman.

If the fusion doesn't work, it doesn't vestryman.

something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.

that the checkmating does not occur is true.

sent1: that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is not true if the navigation does not occur. sent2: the roulette does not occur if the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart occurs is not right. sent3: if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur. sent4: if the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect then the operaticness does not occur. sent5: if the reissuing ecarte does not occur then the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect. sent6: that the callithump does not occur is brought about by that the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur. sent7: if the comparativeness does not occur not the reissuing albinism but the homestretch occurs. sent8: that the testing does not occur but the bumping happens prevents that the commerce occurs. sent9: the breakaway does not occur. sent10: if that the roulette does not occur is not wrong the cathodicness happens and the gentile occurs. sent11: the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur if the cathodicness happens. sent12: if the softening does not occur the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart happens is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the reissuing phlebotomus occurs and the civicsness occurs is correct is not true if the neurectomy does not occur. sent14: if the reissuing albinism does not occur but the homestretch happens the unfairness does not occur. sent15: if the unfairness does not occur the closing occurs or the souse does not occur or both. sent16: the test does not occur but the bump occurs if the operaticness does not occur. sent17: the neurectomy does not occur if the fact that the renunciation and the neurectomy happens is not right. sent18: if the commerce does not occur that the renunciation occurs and the neurectomy happens does not hold. sent19: the comparative does not occur if the fact that the reissuing thallophyte and the wrenching happens is incorrect. sent20: if that the reissuing phlebotomus happens and the civicsness occurs is wrong the navigation does not occur.

¬{A}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the callithump does not occur.

¬{EP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the checkmating does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is not true if the navigation does not occur. sent2: the roulette does not occur if the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart occurs is not right. sent3: if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur. sent4: if the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect then the operaticness does not occur. sent5: if the reissuing ecarte does not occur then the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect. sent6: that the callithump does not occur is brought about by that the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur. sent7: if the comparativeness does not occur not the reissuing albinism but the homestretch occurs. sent8: that the testing does not occur but the bumping happens prevents that the commerce occurs. sent9: the breakaway does not occur. sent10: if that the roulette does not occur is not wrong the cathodicness happens and the gentile occurs. sent11: the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur if the cathodicness happens. sent12: if the softening does not occur the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart happens is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the reissuing phlebotomus occurs and the civicsness occurs is correct is not true if the neurectomy does not occur. sent14: if the reissuing albinism does not occur but the homestretch happens the unfairness does not occur. sent15: if the unfairness does not occur the closing occurs or the souse does not occur or both. sent16: the test does not occur but the bump occurs if the operaticness does not occur. sent17: the neurectomy does not occur if the fact that the renunciation and the neurectomy happens is not right. sent18: if the commerce does not occur that the renunciation occurs and the neurectomy happens does not hold. sent19: the comparative does not occur if the fact that the reissuing thallophyte and the wrenching happens is incorrect. sent20: if that the reissuing phlebotomus happens and the civicsness occurs is wrong the navigation does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur.

if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur.

if that the roulette does not occur is not wrong the cathodicness happens and the gentile occurs.

the overreaction is not penetrable.

sent1: the overreaction unmans Lange. sent2: the overreaction is not penetrable if it does unman Bolivian and it does loft. sent3: the overreaction is penetrable if the fact that the chef is not penetrable is not false. sent4: everything is a fallibility. sent5: if the by-product is not nonracial the chef is not penetrable. sent6: the overreaction does loft if the fact that that the chef is evil and/or it is a kind of a loft hold is incorrect. sent7: everything is nonracial. sent8: the chef is a alleviator if it is a kind of a fallibility. sent9: the chef does reissue cupbearer if it is a kind of a loft. sent10: the cupbearer does not unman Bolivian. sent11: the overreaction lofts if that the chef is not non-evil or not a lofts or both is false. sent12: the overreaction does unman Bolivian if it is nonracial. sent13: if the chef is an evil then it is not racial. sent14: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if it is nonracial. sent15: that the chef is a hymn hold. sent16: the chef unmans Bolivian if it is evil. sent17: the chef lofts. sent18: if the fact that the chef lofts is correct then the gong does lofts. sent19: the overreaction is an evil. sent20: everything is incorrupt. sent21: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if the fact that either the chef does unman Bolivian or it is not an evil or both is not right.

¬{D}{aa}

sent1: {BT}{aa} sent2: ({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{D}{aa} sent3: ¬{D}{a} -> {D}{aa} sent4: (x): {CL}x sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: ¬({F}{a} v {C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x sent8: {CL}{a} -> {FG}{a} sent9: {C}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{dd} sent11: ¬({F}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent13: {F}{a} -> {A}{a} sent14: {A}{aa} -> {F}{aa} sent15: {EK}{a} sent16: {F}{a} -> {B}{a} sent17: {C}{a} sent18: {C}{a} -> {C}{cs} sent19: {F}{aa} sent20: (x): {GP}x sent21: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{F}{a}) -> {F}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the gong is a loft.

{C}{cs}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overreaction is not penetrable. ; $context$ = sent1: the overreaction unmans Lange. sent2: the overreaction is not penetrable if it does unman Bolivian and it does loft. sent3: the overreaction is penetrable if the fact that the chef is not penetrable is not false. sent4: everything is a fallibility. sent5: if the by-product is not nonracial the chef is not penetrable. sent6: the overreaction does loft if the fact that that the chef is evil and/or it is a kind of a loft hold is incorrect. sent7: everything is nonracial. sent8: the chef is a alleviator if it is a kind of a fallibility. sent9: the chef does reissue cupbearer if it is a kind of a loft. sent10: the cupbearer does not unman Bolivian. sent11: the overreaction lofts if that the chef is not non-evil or not a lofts or both is false. sent12: the overreaction does unman Bolivian if it is nonracial. sent13: if the chef is an evil then it is not racial. sent14: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if it is nonracial. sent15: that the chef is a hymn hold. sent16: the chef unmans Bolivian if it is evil. sent17: the chef lofts. sent18: if the fact that the chef lofts is correct then the gong does lofts. sent19: the overreaction is an evil. sent20: everything is incorrupt. sent21: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if the fact that either the chef does unman Bolivian or it is not an evil or both is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is nonracial.

everything is nonracial.

the overreaction does unman Bolivian if it is nonracial.

the transfer is not a cosy.

sent1: something is cardiac if it is a navy. sent2: the fact that something does not reissue republic but it is an apparatus does not hold if it is occupational. sent3: the fact that the fact that the transfer does unman OS and it is a kind of an apparatus is not true is true. sent4: if the cellulite is a kind of a navy the disco is a kind of a navy. sent5: there is something such that it is occupational. sent6: the fact that the transfer is a cosy but it is non-occupational is incorrect if the ethyl does not unman OS. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not occupational then that the transfer unmans OS and it is an apparatus is wrong. sent8: the pumpernickel is not occupational. sent9: the fact that the cellulite is a navy is right if that the minicab is a navy is true. sent10: the minicab is a navy. sent11: something is not a cosy if it does unman OS. sent12: the transfer is a kind of a cosy and it is occupational if there exists something such that it is a kind of an apparatus. sent13: if that the transfer unmans OS is correct it is not a cosy. sent14: that the transfer does not unman OS but it is an apparatus is not right if there exists something such that it is not occupational. sent15: the fact that the ethyl does not unman OS is not false if there is something such that it is cardiac and is a Dermestidae. sent16: the disco is a Dermestidae but it does not diffract.

¬{D}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the afterdamp does not reissue republic but it is a kind of an apparatus is wrong.

¬(¬{AD}{eb} & {B}{eb})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transfer is not a cosy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is cardiac if it is a navy. sent2: the fact that something does not reissue republic but it is an apparatus does not hold if it is occupational. sent3: the fact that the fact that the transfer does unman OS and it is a kind of an apparatus is not true is true. sent4: if the cellulite is a kind of a navy the disco is a kind of a navy. sent5: there is something such that it is occupational. sent6: the fact that the transfer is a cosy but it is non-occupational is incorrect if the ethyl does not unman OS. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not occupational then that the transfer unmans OS and it is an apparatus is wrong. sent8: the pumpernickel is not occupational. sent9: the fact that the cellulite is a navy is right if that the minicab is a navy is true. sent10: the minicab is a navy. sent11: something is not a cosy if it does unman OS. sent12: the transfer is a kind of a cosy and it is occupational if there exists something such that it is a kind of an apparatus. sent13: if that the transfer unmans OS is correct it is not a cosy. sent14: that the transfer does not unman OS but it is an apparatus is not right if there exists something such that it is not occupational. sent15: the fact that the ethyl does not unman OS is not false if there is something such that it is cardiac and is a Dermestidae. sent16: the disco is a Dermestidae but it does not diffract. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pumpernickel is not occupational.

the pumpernickel is not occupational.

that the transfer does not unman OS but it is an apparatus is not right if there exists something such that it is not occupational.

the ash is not prolusory.

sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {B}{aa} sent2: {G}{f} sent3: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {B}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) sent8: (x): {B}x sent9: {A}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent10: {G}{f} -> (¬{F}{e} v ¬{H}{e}) sent11: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: ¬{D}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the ash is not non-prolusory.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ash is not prolusory. ; $context$ = sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the mitomycin is not immaterial hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic.

Everything is alphabetic.

the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold.

the ash is not prolusory.

sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {B}{aa} sent2: {G}{f} sent3: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {B}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) sent8: (x): {B}x sent9: {A}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent10: {G}{f} -> (¬{F}{e} v ¬{H}{e}) sent11: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: ¬{D}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the ash is not non-prolusory.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ash is not prolusory. ; $context$ = sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the mitomycin is not immaterial hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic.

Everything is alphabetic and habituates configurationism.

the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial.

the nummulite is a chauffeur and fossil.

sent1: the premises is not a bush or it is not a kind of a hatchery or both if the hornblende is not corvine. sent2: if something does not reissue Kakatoe then it is not corvine and it does not unman rubdown. sent3: the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini and does go if it is not diamagnetic. sent4: the nummulite is a kind of a hatchery if that the premises is not a bush is not false. sent5: if the fact that the grissino is diamagnetic but it is not a kind of a speedboat is wrong then the cosmopolitan is not diamagnetic. sent6: the nummulite is a kind of a fossil if it is corvine. sent7: the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery. sent8: the belfry does chauffeur. sent9: if the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini but it does go the hornblende does not reissue Kakatoe. sent10: the premises chauffeurs if it is not a kind of a hatchery. sent11: the premises is not a hatchery. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hatchery the fact that it is a chauffeur and is a fossil is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the nummulite is a bush and is not corvine does not hold.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the nummulite is a chauffeur and it is fossil does not hold.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nummulite is a chauffeur and fossil. ; $context$ = sent1: the premises is not a bush or it is not a kind of a hatchery or both if the hornblende is not corvine. sent2: if something does not reissue Kakatoe then it is not corvine and it does not unman rubdown. sent3: the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini and does go if it is not diamagnetic. sent4: the nummulite is a kind of a hatchery if that the premises is not a bush is not false. sent5: if the fact that the grissino is diamagnetic but it is not a kind of a speedboat is wrong then the cosmopolitan is not diamagnetic. sent6: the nummulite is a kind of a fossil if it is corvine. sent7: the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery. sent8: the belfry does chauffeur. sent9: if the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini but it does go the hornblende does not reissue Kakatoe. sent10: the premises chauffeurs if it is not a kind of a hatchery. sent11: the premises is not a hatchery. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hatchery the fact that it is a chauffeur and is a fossil is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the nummulite is a bush and is not corvine does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery.

the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery.

the premises is not a hatchery.

the alb is a kind of a grit.

sent1: everything does reissue subsection and it does not reissue Antarctic. sent2: if the alb is a Rubus then the subsection is a Rubus. sent3: the alb is a kind of a eyecup. sent4: the alb is a grit if the antipodes is not aspectual and it does not counterweight. sent5: the fact that something does habituate deer and grits is not correct if it is not a eyecup. sent6: the switchblade is not aspectual and it is not Gabonese. sent7: something that habituates deer is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight. sent8: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup. sent9: if something that does reissue subsection does not reissue Antarctic it is not a notch. sent10: the forgery is not wolflike and does not familiarize. sent11: everything is a Rubus. sent12: if something does not habituate deer and it is not a grit then it is a kind of a eyecup. sent13: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup that does habituate deer. sent14: the alb is a Rubus if the fact that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or it is a kind of a Chiroptera is wrong. sent15: that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or is a Chiroptera is wrong if there exists something such that it does not notch. sent16: the antipodes is not aspectual. sent17: if something does habituate deer then that it is not aspectual is not incorrect. sent18: if the savior dominates then it is not a fakery and does not habituate Graham. sent19: the antipodes is a kind of a counterweight if the alb is not a grit and it does not habituate deer.

{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent2: {D}{a} -> {D}{dm} sent3: {C}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (¬{AA}{gf} & ¬{GC}{gf}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {C}{aa} sent9: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{E}x sent10: (¬{AR}{cp} & ¬{CU}{cp}) sent11: (x): {D}x sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent13: ({C}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent14: ¬(¬{D}{b} v {F}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {F}{b}) sent16: ¬{AA}{aa} sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent18: {IE}{ao} -> (¬{GG}{ao} & ¬{JI}{ao}) sent19: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the subsection is a kind of a eyecup.

{C}{dm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alb is a kind of a grit. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does reissue subsection and it does not reissue Antarctic. sent2: if the alb is a Rubus then the subsection is a Rubus. sent3: the alb is a kind of a eyecup. sent4: the alb is a grit if the antipodes is not aspectual and it does not counterweight. sent5: the fact that something does habituate deer and grits is not correct if it is not a eyecup. sent6: the switchblade is not aspectual and it is not Gabonese. sent7: something that habituates deer is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight. sent8: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup. sent9: if something that does reissue subsection does not reissue Antarctic it is not a notch. sent10: the forgery is not wolflike and does not familiarize. sent11: everything is a Rubus. sent12: if something does not habituate deer and it is not a grit then it is a kind of a eyecup. sent13: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup that does habituate deer. sent14: the alb is a Rubus if the fact that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or it is a kind of a Chiroptera is wrong. sent15: that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or is a Chiroptera is wrong if there exists something such that it does not notch. sent16: the antipodes is not aspectual. sent17: if something does habituate deer then that it is not aspectual is not incorrect. sent18: if the savior dominates then it is not a fakery and does not habituate Graham. sent19: the antipodes is a kind of a counterweight if the alb is not a grit and it does not habituate deer. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the antipodes is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight if it habituates deer.; sent13 -> int2: the antipodes does habituate deer.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the antipodes is both not aspectual and not a counterweight.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that habituates deer is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight.

A kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterbalance is something that habituates deer.

the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup that does habituate deer.