Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the puerpera does not guggle.

sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary hold. sent5: the haunch is abranchiate. sent6: if the haunch does volatilize then the macaw is not interplanetary but it volatilize. sent7: the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the puerpera does not guggle if something is not interplanetary but it does volatilize. sent9: if the haunch does volatilize then the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary is not incorrect. sent10: the haunch is enforceable. sent11: if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles. sent12: there are non-interplanetary things.

¬{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the puerpera guggles.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the puerpera does not guggle. ; $context$ = sent1: the haunch is abranchiate but it is not a kind of a pyrrhic. sent2: there exists something such that it is interplanetary thing that volatilizes. sent3: there is something such that it does volatilize. sent4: the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary hold. sent5: the haunch is abranchiate. sent6: if the haunch does volatilize then the macaw is not interplanetary but it volatilize. sent7: the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic. sent8: the puerpera does not guggle if something is not interplanetary but it does volatilize. sent9: if the haunch does volatilize then the fact that the macaw is not interplanetary is not incorrect. sent10: the haunch is enforceable. sent11: if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles. sent12: there are non-interplanetary things. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic.

the macaw is not abranchiate if there is something such that it does not volatilize and is a pyrrhic.

if the fact that the haunch is interplanetary is correct then the puerpera guggles.

the lashing occurs and the fading occurs.

sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur.

({AB} & {B})

sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the residualness and the oligarchicness happens.

({FO} & {HJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs.

The non-chlamydialness causes the lash to occur.

the chlamydialness does not occur.

the lashing occurs and the fading occurs.

sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur.

({AB} & {B})

sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the residualness and the oligarchicness happens.

({FO} & {HJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs.

The non-chlamydialness causes the lashes to occur.

if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs.

the lashing occurs and the fading occurs.

sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur.

({AB} & {B})

sent1: {I} -> ¬(¬{G} & {F}) sent2: {A} -> {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{C} -> ({HJ} & {B}) sent5: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent6: (¬{FB} & {BN}) sent7: ¬{D} -> {C} sent8: (¬{BQ} & {FC}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent10: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the residualness and the oligarchicness happens.

({FO} & {HJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lashing occurs and the fading occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sewing happens the fact that not the feminizing pickpocket but the dipterousness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the chlamydialness occurs the residual occurs. sent3: the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs. sent4: if the fumble does not occur both the oligarchicness and the fade occurs. sent5: if the fact that the feminizing pickpocket does not occur and the dipterousness occurs is not right that the gentling does not occur hold. sent6: both the non-ontologicalness and the demur occurs. sent7: the non-digitalness prevents that the fumbling does not occur. sent8: the non-baboonishness and the credibleness happens. sent9: the fact that the fumble and the digitalness occurs is not right if the gentling does not occur. sent10: if the digitalness does not occur then the fading and the fumbling occurs. sent11: the chlamydialness does not occur. sent12: the digitalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the skunk does not occur and the lash occurs.; int1 -> int2: the lash occurs.; sent10 & sent12 -> int3: the fading and the fumble occurs.; int3 -> int4: the fact that the fade happens is not false.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-chlamydialness triggers that the skunk does not occur but the lash occurs.

The non-chlamydialness causes the skunk to not occur.

the digitalness does not occur.

that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold.

sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody does not occur. sent3: if the consorting Tyrolean occurs then the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increase does not occur. sent4: if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs. sent5: if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs.

¬({A} v ¬{B})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

either the figuration occurs or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both.

({A} v ¬{B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that either the figuration happens or the stunting Satureja does not occur or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increasing does not occur then the stunting Satureja does not occur. sent2: that the increase occurs triggers that the stunting Peabody does not occur. sent3: if the consorting Tyrolean occurs then the stunting Peabody does not occur and the increase does not occur. sent4: if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs. sent5: if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs.

if the figuration happens then the stunting Peabody occurs.

if the stunting Satureja does not occur the stunting Peabody occurs.

both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens.

sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs.

The going-over occurs or the twenty-one occurs.

if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs.

both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens.

sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs.

The twenty-one occurs or the going-over occurs.

that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens.

both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens.

sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the portrayal occurs and the stunting self-reproach happens is wrong.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the portrayal and the stunting self-reproach happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs. sent2: that both the attempt and the unhealthiness happens is true. sent3: the selection occurs if the riparianness occurs. sent4: the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs. sent5: if the twenty-one happens then the portrayal occurs. sent6: that the portrayal occurs is caused by that the going-over happens. sent7: if the twenty-one does not occur the fact that the portrayal happens and the stunting self-reproach happens is not correct. sent8: the stunting Ugric does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the portrayal happens.; sent1 -> int2: the stunting self-reproach happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the twenty-one occurs and/or the going-over occurs.

The going-over occurs or the twenty-one happens.

the stunting Ugric does not occur but the stunting self-reproach occurs.

the shamanistness does not occur.

sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jack-o'-lantern happens. sent4: the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. sent5: the lyric occurs if the geophysicalness occurs.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the shamanistness does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shamanistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Tasmanianness happens and the considering totipotency does not occur then the faro does not occur. sent2: the fact that the jack-o'-lantern does not occur and the cotillion does not occur is not right if the faro does not occur. sent3: the jack-o'-lantern happens. sent4: the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs. sent5: the lyric occurs if the geophysicalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs.

the shamanistness happens if the jack-o'-lantern occurs.

the jack-o'-lantern happens.

the vagary does not occur.

sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{ES} sent2: {CH} sent3: {B} sent4: ({DN} & {EK}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {AE}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the vagary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the depreciation happens.

The depreciation happens.

the brainwave happens.

the vagary does not occur.

sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{ES} sent2: {CH} sent3: {B} sent4: ({DN} & {EK}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {AE}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the vagary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the democratization does not occur is correct. sent2: the belemniticness happens. sent3: the brainwave happens. sent4: the tough happens and the Jeffersonianness occurs. sent5: that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs. sent6: the depreciation happens. sent7: the fact that the candlepins does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: both the depreciation and the brainwave happens.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the depreciation happens.

The depreciation occurs.

that the vagary occurs is prevented by that the depreciation occurs and the brainwave occurs.

the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs.

sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such that it is not a fellow. sent5: the tither is a kind of a Polynesian that is not a volatility. sent6: the tither is phonetic but it is not a quince. sent7: if the areola is a kind of anestrous thing that is not a pogrom the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom. sent8: there exists something such that it is a misdeal. sent9: there is something such that it does front and it is not a Jacobs. sent10: the halon does consort halon but it does not front. sent11: that the tither is a Jacobs and is Stravinskyan is false if that the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom is true. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a Jacobs that is not a front then the halon does not consort halon. sent13: something is not a Jacobs. sent14: something does not consort Democrat. sent15: if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs. sent16: the tither is a kind of a front but it is not a volatility. sent17: something does consort halon and it is a Jacobs. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Carib. sent19: something is a Jacobs that does consort halon.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent2: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{hp} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{F}x sent5: ({IU}{a} & ¬{IK}{a}) sent6: ({EC}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent7: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: (Ex): {CB}x sent9: (Ex): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: (x): ({A}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{FJ}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: ({AB}{a} & ¬{IK}{a}) sent17: (Ex): ({AA}x & {A}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{BT}x sent19: (Ex): ({A}x & {AA}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the albite does not consort halon.

¬{AA}{hp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tither is not a kind of a Jacobs. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not exaugural. sent2: the albite does not consort halon if that the tither is a Jacobs and it is Stravinskyan does not hold. sent3: something consorts halon but it is not a Jacobs. sent4: there is something such that it is not a fellow. sent5: the tither is a kind of a Polynesian that is not a volatility. sent6: the tither is phonetic but it is not a quince. sent7: if the areola is a kind of anestrous thing that is not a pogrom the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom. sent8: there exists something such that it is a misdeal. sent9: there is something such that it does front and it is not a Jacobs. sent10: the halon does consort halon but it does not front. sent11: that the tither is a Jacobs and is Stravinskyan is false if that the Democrat is not a kind of a pogrom is true. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a Jacobs that is not a front then the halon does not consort halon. sent13: something is not a Jacobs. sent14: something does not consort Democrat. sent15: if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs. sent16: the tither is a kind of a front but it is not a volatility. sent17: something does consort halon and it is a Jacobs. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Carib. sent19: something is a Jacobs that does consort halon. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: something does consort halon but it is not a front.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the halon does consort halon but it does not front.

the halon does consort halon but it does not front.

if something that does consort halon does not front then the tither is not a Jacobs.

the crape is not a kind of a Sinology.

sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinology. sent3: the reticule is not sportive if the fact that the mammal is not belemnitic but it is sportive is not true. sent4: the mango is not detachable and/or it is sportive if the crape is non-belemnitic. sent5: that the commuter is a Arno or a Sinology or both is not right. sent6: everything is not a Arno. sent7: if that that the commuter is a Sinology and/or is a kind of a Arno does not hold is not incorrect then the crape is not alkaline. sent8: the fact that the commuter is not a kind of a Arno is correct. sent9: there is nothing such that either it is incomplete or it feminizes nepotism or both. sent10: there is nothing that is either a permutation or a milk or both. sent11: there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. sent12: if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. sent13: something is not a kind of a Sinology if it is not detachable or it is sportive or both.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬({AB}{a} v {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{D}{d} & {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{B}{cu} v {C}{cu}) sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{AA}x sent7: ¬({A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({AG}x v {CI}x) sent10: (x): ¬({EN}x v {BR}x) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): (¬{B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}x

PROVED

PROVED

the crape is a Sinology.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is non-belemnitic thing that is sportive does not hold if the fact that it is thermionics is not false. sent2: if the fact that the crape is not non-alkaline and/or it is a kind of a Arno is not correct the commuter is not a Sinology. sent3: the reticule is not sportive if the fact that the mammal is not belemnitic but it is sportive is not true. sent4: the mango is not detachable and/or it is sportive if the crape is non-belemnitic. sent5: that the commuter is a Arno or a Sinology or both is not right. sent6: everything is not a Arno. sent7: if that that the commuter is a Sinology and/or is a kind of a Arno does not hold is not incorrect then the crape is not alkaline. sent8: the fact that the commuter is not a kind of a Arno is correct. sent9: there is nothing such that either it is incomplete or it feminizes nepotism or both. sent10: there is nothing that is either a permutation or a milk or both. sent11: there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both. sent12: if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology. sent13: something is not a kind of a Sinology if it is not detachable or it is sportive or both. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the commuter is a Arno and/or it is alkaline is false.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both.

there is nothing such that it either is a kind of a Arno or is alkaline or both.

if that the commuter is a Arno or it is alkaline or both is not correct the crape is not a kind of a Sinology.

the blister is a undershrub.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the blister is not a kind of a undershrub.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the blister is a undershrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese.

The fact that the blister is not a river and the eclair is not a river is correct.

the eclair is a Togolese.

the blister is a undershrub.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the blister is not a kind of a undershrub.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the blister is a undershrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder. sent2: the ex-spouse is not taxable. sent3: something completes and it does feminize emphysema if it is not taxable. sent4: if the eclair is a kind of a Togolese that the blister is a kind of a Mali and is not a river is not right. sent5: that the blister is both not a Mali and a river is not true if the eclair is Togolese. sent6: the eclair is a Mali. sent7: the nova is Togolese. sent8: something lapidifies if it is a kind of a picofarad. sent9: the blister completes. sent10: that the blister is a kind of a Mali but it is not a river is wrong. sent11: the eclair is a Togolese. sent12: that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese. sent13: something is not a kind of a undershrub if it is Togolese and it is not a wonder. sent14: that the blister is not a Mali but it is a river is incorrect. sent15: if there exists something such that it feminizes emphysema the fact that the pudge does not feminizes emphysema and it does not lapidify is not correct. sent16: if that the pudge does not feminize emphysema and does not lapidify is wrong that the eclair is not a local hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the blister is both not a Mali and not a river is wrong is right if the eclair is Togolese.

If the eclair is Togolese, then the fact that the blister is not a river is correct.

if the fact that something is not a Mali and it is not a kind of a river is not true it is a kind of a wonder.

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false.

sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then that it is not a Becket and does not gazump does not hold. sent3: if something is not a brinkmanship then that it is not a kind of a cogitation and is not a database is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a straight-arm hold then it is not a heading and not phonetic. sent5: if the applique is not a brinkmanship it does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical. sent6: if something is not a hammock then that it is both not a Petrogale and not salivary does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that something does not feminize lasher and is gymnosophical is false if it is not a brinkmanship is not false. sent8: if something is a brinkmanship that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is incorrect. sent9: if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. sent10: the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a brinkmanship then that it does not feminize lasher and it is gymnosophical does not hold. sent12: something does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical if that it is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a digression it does not stunt Allegheny and does not consort GAO.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: {GC}{db} -> ¬(¬{A}{db} & ¬{IK}{db}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{AE}x -> ¬(¬{EI}x & ¬{HK}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{JF}x & ¬{IL}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{HO}x -> (¬{HP}x & ¬{FF}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ¬(¬{AM}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬({JE}{aa} & ¬{DG}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{GS}x -> (¬{IC}x & ¬{EC}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

if the fact that the Kichai is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect the fact that it is not a cogitation and it is not a database is not right.

¬{A}{hs} -> ¬(¬{JF}{hs} & ¬{IL}{hs})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a brinkmanship then the fact that that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is true is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ketosteroid belays is not false then that it is not a kind of a brinkmanship and it is not orthopedic is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a Dolichonyx then that it is not a Becket and does not gazump does not hold. sent3: if something is not a brinkmanship then that it is not a kind of a cogitation and is not a database is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a straight-arm hold then it is not a heading and not phonetic. sent5: if the applique is not a brinkmanship it does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical. sent6: if something is not a hammock then that it is both not a Petrogale and not salivary does not hold. sent7: the fact that the fact that something does not feminize lasher and is gymnosophical is false if it is not a brinkmanship is not false. sent8: if something is a brinkmanship that it does not feminize lasher and is not gymnosophical is incorrect. sent9: if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong. sent10: the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a brinkmanship then that it does not feminize lasher and it is gymnosophical does not hold. sent12: something does not feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical if that it is not a brinkmanship is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a digression it does not stunt Allegheny and does not consort GAO. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong.

if something is not a brinkmanship then that that it does feminize lasher and it is not gymnosophical is correct is wrong.

the fact that the applique does feminize fencing and is not chordal is false if it does not feminize lasher.

the pyx is not conventional.

sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: (x): {O}x -> {K}x sent14: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pyx is not conventional.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator.

The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.

the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong.

the pyx is not conventional.

sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: (x): {O}x -> {K}x sent14: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pyx is not conventional.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator.

The back swimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum.

if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics.

the pyx is not conventional.

sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent6: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent9: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {A}{c}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: (x): {O}x -> {K}x sent14: {B}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pyx is not conventional.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pyx is not conventional. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is wrong. sent2: the backswimmer is a aggravator if the hookah consorts khoum. sent3: something is conventional if it is systematics. sent4: the hookah is not a Numidian if the fact that the fact that it is not a dekaliter and is Numidian is true is not true. sent5: if the fact that the pyx is not a aggravator and is not systematics is not right the backswimmer is conventional. sent6: if the backswimmer is a aggravator the pyx is systematics. sent7: there exists something such that it is a dekaliter. sent8: the fact that the hookah feminizes anthropometry and it consorts Goma is not false if it is not a Numidian. sent9: something is a aggravator if that it consorts Goma is correct. sent10: the fact that the pyx is not purposeful but it is systematics is not true. sent11: that the hookah does consort khoum but it is not purposeful is not true. sent12: if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator. sent13: something is a kind of an infamy if it is a psychosexuality. sent14: the pyx is a aggravator. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent1 -> int1: the backswimmer is a aggravator.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the pyx is systematics.; sent3 -> int3: the pyx is conventional if it is not non-systematics.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not purposeful is not correct then the backswimmer is a kind of a aggravator.

The backswimmer is a kind of aggravator if the hookah does not consort khoum and it is not intended.

something is conventional if it is systematics.

the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true.

sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical.

¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the flagellant is nautical and not flinty.

({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative.

There is a wash that is unargumentative.

if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical.

the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true.

sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical.

¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the flagellant is nautical and not flinty.

({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the flagellant is a kind of nautical thing that is not flinty is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the flagellant is nautical and it is flinty does not hold if the Cyril is not nautical. sent2: something is not a kind of a backband if it is a kind of a Anhingidae. sent3: the fact that the Cyril is not denotative is not incorrect if a flinty thing is not a kind of a snakebite. sent4: something does wash and it is argumentative. sent5: the Cyril is not flinty. sent6: the fact that the Cyril does consort bitmap and is recessionary is wrong if it is not a backband. sent7: if the butte does feminize Saladin that the Cyril is a kind of a Anhingidae hold. sent8: the flagellant is not algorithmic if there is something such that it is a kind of matriarchal thing that is not a wash. sent9: if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true. sent10: something that is not recessionary is outdoors and does stunt Islam. sent11: the butte feminizes Saladin. sent12: the fact that the flagellant is nautical and flinty is false. sent13: there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative. sent14: something is nautical but it is non-flinty. sent15: there exists something such that it does wash. sent16: if a wash is not argumentative then the Cyril is not nautical. sent17: if something is outdoors then it is both nautical and non-flinty. sent18: the fact that the Cyril is nautical but it is not flinty is incorrect if the flagellant is not nautical. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent16 -> int1: the Cyril is not nautical.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a wash that is unargumentative.

There is something that is unargumentative.

if the Cyril is not nautical then that the flagellant is nautical but it is not flinty is not true.

the alderman is a scallop.

sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashing if the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist. sent5: if something does not feminize sociologist and/or is a knawel it does not feminize sociologist. sent6: the alderman is not disjunct or a scallop or both. sent7: if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. sent8: the spironolactone is not a priority if the motorcycle is not a priority or it does not feminize sociologist or both. sent9: the alderman is not a scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent10: the fact that the witness is nonarboreal hold. sent11: the porcupinefish does not scallop and/or it does render. sent12: the motorcycle is not a priority and/or it does not feminize sociologist if the laver feminizes flashing. sent13: the alderman is not a scallop if the porcupinefish feminizes townie. sent14: the porcupinefish is nonarboreal and/or it does render. sent15: the alderman does not render or is a scallop or both. sent16: the alderman is nonarboreal if the porcupinefish does not scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent17: the alderman is a scallop if the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the alderman is not a kind of a scallop.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alderman is a scallop. ; $context$ = sent1: either the alderman is nonarboreal or it does scallop or both. sent2: the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders. sent3: the laver feminizes flashing if the flat is a knawel. sent4: the spironolactone is not a priority and does not feminize flashing if the motorcycle does not feminize sociologist. sent5: if something does not feminize sociologist and/or is a knawel it does not feminize sociologist. sent6: the alderman is not disjunct or a scallop or both. sent7: if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops. sent8: the spironolactone is not a priority if the motorcycle is not a priority or it does not feminize sociologist or both. sent9: the alderman is not a scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent10: the fact that the witness is nonarboreal hold. sent11: the porcupinefish does not scallop and/or it does render. sent12: the motorcycle is not a priority and/or it does not feminize sociologist if the laver feminizes flashing. sent13: the alderman is not a scallop if the porcupinefish feminizes townie. sent14: the porcupinefish is nonarboreal and/or it does render. sent15: the alderman does not render or is a scallop or both. sent16: the alderman is nonarboreal if the porcupinefish does not scallop or it is a rendering or both. sent17: the alderman is a scallop if the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops.

if either the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal or it does render or both the alderman scallops.

the porcupinefish is not nonarboreal and/or renders.

the selvage is Nordic.

sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a lincomycin. sent4: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin that is Nordic is not correct. sent5: if the PTO is not insignificant then the businesswoman is lactogenic and is ecological. sent6: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and is Nordic is wrong. sent7: that the selvage is not a lincomycin is right if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not Nordic is not right. sent8: the PTO is not insignificant. sent9: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin but it is not Nordic is not true. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is a Oklahoma and is prewar. sent11: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium and is a lincomycin is false. sent12: if the hull is not a spermatocyte and is not disintegrative the selvage is not many. sent13: there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. sent14: the salp is bifilar or does not test or both. sent15: if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic. sent16: the fact that the selvage is not a lincomycin is true. sent17: if the hull is not a Hyaenidae then it is not a spermatocyte and it is not disintegrative. sent18: the Nasturtium is not rigid.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the seamount is not Nordic.

¬{A}{jh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the selvage is Nordic. ; $context$ = sent1: the hull is not a kind of a Hyaenidae if there is something such that it is bifilar and/or does not test. sent2: the Nasturtium is not Nordic. sent3: that the fact that the selvage is Nordic is not wrong is incorrect if there exists something such that it is a lincomycin. sent4: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin that is Nordic is not correct. sent5: if the PTO is not insignificant then the businesswoman is lactogenic and is ecological. sent6: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and is Nordic is wrong. sent7: that the selvage is not a lincomycin is right if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not Nordic is not right. sent8: the PTO is not insignificant. sent9: the fact that the Nasturtium is a lincomycin but it is not Nordic is not true. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is a Oklahoma and is prewar. sent11: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium and is a lincomycin is false. sent12: if the hull is not a spermatocyte and is not disintegrative the selvage is not many. sent13: there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin. sent14: the salp is bifilar or does not test or both. sent15: if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic. sent16: the fact that the selvage is not a lincomycin is true. sent17: if the hull is not a Hyaenidae then it is not a spermatocyte and it is not disintegrative. sent18: the Nasturtium is not rigid. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: that the Nasturtium stunts Nasturtium but it is not a lincomycin is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not right.; int2 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin.

there is nothing that does stunt Nasturtium and is not a lincomycin.

if there exists something such that that it stunts Nasturtium and it is not a lincomycin is not correct the selvage is not Nordic.

the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens.

sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype does not occur if the fact that both the considering holotype and the retorting occurs does not hold. sent5: the stunting straitjacket occurs. sent6: the airdrop happens. sent7: the presidency occurs. sent8: the fastness occurs. sent9: the caveat occurs. sent10: the considering holotype is triggered by that the squelching does not occur. sent11: the displaying happens. sent12: if that the consorting jiggermast occurs is not incorrect then the squelching does not occur but the retort occurs. sent13: the fact that that both the considering holotype and the retort occurs is true is incorrect if the squelch does not occur. sent14: the sparking happens. sent15: the three-dimensionalness occurs. sent16: the illegitimateness happens and the cryptanalyticness occurs. sent17: if the considering holotype occurs the stunting straitjacket does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the fogbank does not occur is true then the explicating occurs and the quackery happens. sent19: the stunting wheeze happens and the detox happens. sent20: if the explicating happens the squelching does not occur and the consorting jiggermast does not occur.

({A} & {B})

sent1: {EN} sent2: {EP} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({JD} & {A}) sent4: ¬({C} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: {JG} sent7: {BF} sent8: {GC} sent9: {A} sent10: ¬{D} -> {C} sent11: {CO} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {E}) sent14: {HF} sent15: {HK} sent16: ({GE} & {GJ}) sent17: {C} -> ¬{B} sent18: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent19: ({JE} & {IS}) sent20: {G} -> (¬{D} & ¬{F})

PROVED

PROVED

the spiccato happens.

{JD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caveat happens and the stunting straitjacket happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the feminizing tetranychid happens. sent2: the consorting custom-made occurs. sent3: the spiccato and the caveat happens if the fact that the stunting straitjacket does not occur is correct. sent4: the considering holotype does not occur if the fact that both the considering holotype and the retorting occurs does not hold. sent5: the stunting straitjacket occurs. sent6: the airdrop happens. sent7: the presidency occurs. sent8: the fastness occurs. sent9: the caveat occurs. sent10: the considering holotype is triggered by that the squelching does not occur. sent11: the displaying happens. sent12: if that the consorting jiggermast occurs is not incorrect then the squelching does not occur but the retort occurs. sent13: the fact that that both the considering holotype and the retort occurs is true is incorrect if the squelch does not occur. sent14: the sparking happens. sent15: the three-dimensionalness occurs. sent16: the illegitimateness happens and the cryptanalyticness occurs. sent17: if the considering holotype occurs the stunting straitjacket does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the fogbank does not occur is true then the explicating occurs and the quackery happens. sent19: the stunting wheeze happens and the detox happens. sent20: if the explicating happens the squelching does not occur and the consorting jiggermast does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the caveat occurs.

the caveat occurs.

the stunting straitjacket occurs.

that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong.

sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. sent6: that the flibbertigibbet is a VCR is not wrong. sent7: the flibbertigibbet is a dare. sent8: the bullnose is a kind of a dare and does consider bombardment. sent9: the pussycat feminizes slander. sent10: the napalm is a dare.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: {A}{t} sent3: ({B}{dg} & {HN}{dg}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: {B}{b} sent7: {A}{b} sent8: ({A}{df} & {IM}{df}) sent9: {C}{a} sent10: {A}{hh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the flibbertigibbet does not feminize slander is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the flibbertigibbet does feminize slander and it is a kind of a dare if it is not a VCR. sent2: the Warren dares. sent3: the czarina is a VCR and a septum. sent4: the pussycat dares. sent5: the pussycat is a kind of a VCR. sent6: that the flibbertigibbet is a VCR is not wrong. sent7: the flibbertigibbet is a dare. sent8: the bullnose is a kind of a dare and does consider bombardment. sent9: the pussycat feminizes slander. sent10: the napalm is a dare. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pussycat dares.

the pussycat dares.

the pussycat is a kind of a VCR.

the applique does not feminize applique.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient.

¬{E}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur.

{DA}{a} -> {GG}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a glorification.

There is something that is a glorification.

if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient.

the applique does not feminize applique.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient.

¬{E}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur.

{DA}{a} -> {GG}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a glorification.

There is a glorification that exists.

that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong.

the applique does not feminize applique.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient.

¬{E}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the applique is a ELISA if it does consort bur.

{DA}{a} -> {GG}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the applique does not feminize applique. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a glorification. sent2: that the applique does stunt GNP if the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient is not wrong. sent3: the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a glorification the applique consorts Trema and is not mutafacient. sent5: if something does consort bur then it is a ELISA. sent6: the applique is not mutafacient. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the applique does consort Trema but it is not mutafacient.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the applique stunts GNP.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a glorification.

There is a thing that is a glorification.

the applique feminizes applique if it does stunt GNP.

the chap does not feminize rubbing.

sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold.

¬{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the chap does feminize rubbing.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chap does not feminize rubbing. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress.

The asteroid has a collapsible proprietress.

that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect.

the chap does not feminize rubbing.

sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold.

¬{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the chap does feminize rubbing.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chap does not feminize rubbing. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chap does not feminize rubbing is not incorrect if the asteroid is both a ninon and Kafkaesque. sent2: something is a sunscreen but it is not a Spartan. sent3: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen and it is a Spartan is false. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque. sent5: that the dideoxyinosine is a sunscreen that is not a kind of a Spartan is incorrect. sent6: the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress. sent7: the asteroid is a proprietress. sent8: if something is not a ninon then that it is not collapsible and it is not a proprietress does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the asteroid is collapsible a proprietress.

The asteroid has a proprietress.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is a sunscreen that is not a Spartan is wrong the asteroid is Kafkaesque.

the kainite is a kind of a fascicle.

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a fascicle if that it either does not differ or is Dionysian or both is wrong. sent4: if something is not an occident then that it is avian and does differ is false. sent5: that the lovage is not a fascicle but it is a hole-in-the-wall is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle. sent7: the kainite is not a monte if there exists something such that that it is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle is false. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not a fascicle and it is not a hole-in-the-wall. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is a monte is wrong. sent10: there exists nothing that is a monte and not a fascicle. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. sent12: if something that is not an occident is not a cytosine it is not avian. sent13: if that the grader is not a keyed and not a cytosine is incorrect then the fact that it is not a kind of an occident is correct. sent14: if that something is not a fascicle and is non-Dionysian is not correct then it is a fascicle. sent15: if something is not avian the fact that it does not differ and/or is Dionysian is not correct. sent16: the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true. sent17: if something does not differ then that it is not a fascicle and it is not Dionysian is wrong. sent18: the fact that the lovage is a kind of a hole-in-the-wall but it is not a monte is not correct. sent19: that the fact that the grader does not key and it is not a kind of a cytosine is not true is not incorrect if it is non-invertible. sent20: there is nothing such that it is both not a scent and credible.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the kainite is a fascicle is not wrong.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kainite is a kind of a fascicle. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is wrong. sent2: that the kainite is non-diurnal thing that is not a Caprella does not hold if the grader is not a kind of a fascicle. sent3: something is not a fascicle if that it either does not differ or is Dionysian or both is wrong. sent4: if something is not an occident then that it is avian and does differ is false. sent5: that the lovage is not a fascicle but it is a hole-in-the-wall is false. sent6: there exists nothing that is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle. sent7: the kainite is not a monte if there exists something such that that it is both not a hole-in-the-wall and not a fascicle is false. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not a fascicle and it is not a hole-in-the-wall. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is a monte is wrong. sent10: there exists nothing that is a monte and not a fascicle. sent11: there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte. sent12: if something that is not an occident is not a cytosine it is not avian. sent13: if that the grader is not a keyed and not a cytosine is incorrect then the fact that it is not a kind of an occident is correct. sent14: if that something is not a fascicle and is non-Dionysian is not correct then it is a fascicle. sent15: if something is not avian the fact that it does not differ and/or is Dionysian is not correct. sent16: the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true. sent17: if something does not differ then that it is not a fascicle and it is not Dionysian is wrong. sent18: the fact that the lovage is a kind of a hole-in-the-wall but it is not a monte is not correct. sent19: that the fact that the grader does not key and it is not a kind of a cytosine is not true is not incorrect if it is non-invertible. sent20: there is nothing such that it is both not a scent and credible. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: that the lovage is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a kind of a monte is not true.; int2 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte.

there exists nothing such that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and it is not a monte.

the kainite is not a kind of a fascicle if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a hole-in-the-wall and is not a monte is not true.

the whisk does stunt jackfruit.

sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.

{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: {EG}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent17: ¬({ID}{bk} & {C}{bk}) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold.

It isn't a diet if it isn't a no-go and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if

that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong.

the whisk does stunt jackfruit.

sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.

{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: {EG}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent17: ¬({ID}{bk} & {C}{bk}) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold.

It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn't a diet if it isn

the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.

the whisk does stunt jackfruit.

sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right.

{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{DP}{fs} & {HJ}{fs}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AG}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{BU}{ca} & {AB}{ca}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent13: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: {EG}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent17: ¬({ID}{bk} & {C}{bk}) sent18: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

that the whisk does not stunt jackfruit hold.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whisk does stunt jackfruit. ; $context$ = sent1: the screen is a billyo and it is a nailbrush if there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent2: that the homebrew is not the absolute if that the homebrew is auroral and it does consort screen does not hold is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the wretch does not feminize mill but it is triclinic does not hold. sent4: the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold. sent5: if something does consort screen but it is not an absolute then it does not stunt jackfruit. sent6: the fact that the fact that the whisk is not absolute but bellyless does not hold is right. sent7: that something is a diet and it is no-go is not right if it is not an absolute. sent8: if the homebrew does not consort screen it is not absolute. sent9: the fact that the Europeanization is both not syncretic and no-go is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a biquadratic. sent11: the fact that the homebrew is a diet that is no-go does not hold if the fact that it is not absolute is not wrong. sent12: a billyo is non-auroral a sulfamethoxazole. sent13: if the fact that the whisk consorts screen and it stunts jackfruit does not hold then it is not an absolute. sent14: the homebrew is lengthwise. sent15: if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold. sent16: the whisk stunts jackfruit if the homebrew does diet. sent17: that the doula is a humming that consorts screen does not hold. sent18: that the homebrew is a diet and is no-go does not hold. sent19: the fact that the homebrew is auroral and does consort screen is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the fact that the homebrew is not a kind of a diet but it is no-go is wrong if the fact that it is not a kind of an absolute is not incorrect.; sent2 & sent19 -> int2: the homebrew is non-absolute.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go is false.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not absolute that it is not a diet and it is no-go does not hold.

It's not a diet if it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn't a diet and it isn

the whisk does stunt jackfruit if that the homebrew does not diet but it is no-go does not hold.

the armet stunts chloroplast.

sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY and/or consorts wrestling is not false. sent5: the clinic stunts chloroplast and does consort NY. sent6: the clinic does stunt chloroplast. sent7: the businesswoman either does consider tachymeter or does feminize blueberry or both. sent8: if the evacuee is not existential then the tureen is not meager. sent9: the clinic consorts NY. sent10: the abdominal consorts wrestling and is a phoronid. sent11: if something is non-asterismal thing that is noncrucial it is not existential. sent12: the armet is untruthful and it is a jesting. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something does not stunt armet but it is a Nelumbonaceae is true is not true it is a narrow. sent14: that the armet consorts NY hold. sent15: that the clinic is hemiparasitic and a Truth is not false. sent16: the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. sent17: if the necker is mortal then the evacuee is not asterismal and is not crucial. sent18: the chloroplast does stunt armet if the businesswoman feminizes blueberry. sent19: the dragonhead is subclavian and it is an angelfish. sent20: a narrow thing is mortal.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the armet does not stunt chloroplast.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the armet stunts chloroplast. ; $context$ = sent1: if the clinic does consort wrestling then the armet stunts chloroplast. sent2: the chloroplast stunts armet if the businesswoman does consider tachymeter. sent3: everything is meager. sent4: if the tureen is not meager that the clinic does not consort NY and/or consorts wrestling is not false. sent5: the clinic stunts chloroplast and does consort NY. sent6: the clinic does stunt chloroplast. sent7: the businesswoman either does consider tachymeter or does feminize blueberry or both. sent8: if the evacuee is not existential then the tureen is not meager. sent9: the clinic consorts NY. sent10: the abdominal consorts wrestling and is a phoronid. sent11: if something is non-asterismal thing that is noncrucial it is not existential. sent12: the armet is untruthful and it is a jesting. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something does not stunt armet but it is a Nelumbonaceae is true is not true it is a narrow. sent14: that the armet consorts NY hold. sent15: that the clinic is hemiparasitic and a Truth is not false. sent16: the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast. sent17: if the necker is mortal then the evacuee is not asterismal and is not crucial. sent18: the chloroplast does stunt armet if the businesswoman feminizes blueberry. sent19: the dragonhead is subclavian and it is an angelfish. sent20: a narrow thing is mortal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast.

the clinic does consort NY and does stunt chloroplast.

everything is meager.

the nun is Gibraltarian.

sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the milord is not fishy and does not consort sailboat is true is wrong. sent5: the LAN is not fishy.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the nun is not a kind of a Gibraltarian.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nun is Gibraltarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the nun is not a heroic. sent2: that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy. sent3: if the LAN is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not consider knife-handle then the nun is not a Gibraltarian. sent4: that that the milord is not fishy and does not consort sailboat is true is wrong. sent5: the LAN is not fishy. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy.

that the LAN is not pyroligneous and it is not a heroic is false if it is not fishy.

the LAN is not fishy.

the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong.

sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The Eddy stunts stonecrop. sent4: if the stonecrop stunts goosander then it does not stunt gauss. sent5: the mistflower does not stunt Eddy. sent6: something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both. sent7: the gyrfalcon is not invitational if there is something such that the fact that it does not stunt Eddy is right. sent8: the stonecrop is anorectal. sent9: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and it is not a kind of a surveyor if it is anorectal. sent10: the stonecrop stunts Eddy. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Ajuga but it is anorectal is wrong if it is not a kind of a reductionism. sent12: if something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both then that the quadraphony is not a kind of a reductionism is not incorrect. sent13: something does not stunt Eddy if the fact that it is not a kind of a soar and it stunts arsenide does not hold. sent14: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and stunts goosander is wrong. sent15: the tomtit is a surveyor if the squirter is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg. sent16: if something stunts bootleg the fact that the fencing is not a soar but it does stunt arsenide is not true. sent17: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander. sent18: if the fencing does not stunt goosander the stonecrop stunts gauss and does stunt Eddy. sent19: the tomtit stunts bootleg and it is enzymatic. sent20: the fencing does not stunt goosander if the tomtit does not stunt arsenide and does not soar. sent21: something is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg if it is not anorectal. sent22: something does not stunt arsenide and it does not soar if it is a surveyor.

{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the stonecrop does stunt gauss.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stonecrop stunts gauss is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss. sent2: the gyrfalcon does not stunt goosander if the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and stunts gauss. sent3: The Eddy stunts stonecrop. sent4: if the stonecrop stunts goosander then it does not stunt gauss. sent5: the mistflower does not stunt Eddy. sent6: something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both. sent7: the gyrfalcon is not invitational if there is something such that the fact that it does not stunt Eddy is right. sent8: the stonecrop is anorectal. sent9: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander and it is not a kind of a surveyor if it is anorectal. sent10: the stonecrop stunts Eddy. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Ajuga but it is anorectal is wrong if it is not a kind of a reductionism. sent12: if something is not a circumflex or does not consort Libocedrus or both then that the quadraphony is not a kind of a reductionism is not incorrect. sent13: something does not stunt Eddy if the fact that it is not a kind of a soar and it stunts arsenide does not hold. sent14: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and stunts goosander is wrong. sent15: the tomtit is a surveyor if the squirter is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg. sent16: if something stunts bootleg the fact that the fencing is not a soar but it does stunt arsenide is not true. sent17: the stonecrop does not stunt goosander. sent18: if the fencing does not stunt goosander the stonecrop stunts gauss and does stunt Eddy. sent19: the tomtit stunts bootleg and it is enzymatic. sent20: the fencing does not stunt goosander if the tomtit does not stunt arsenide and does not soar. sent21: something is enzymatic but it does not stunt bootleg if it is not anorectal. sent22: something does not stunt arsenide and it does not soar if it is a surveyor. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and does not stunt goosander.; assump1 -> int1: that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy is correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stonecrop stunts Eddy.

the stonecrop stunts Eddy.

if that the stonecrop does not stunt Eddy and it does not stunt goosander is not right it does not stunt gauss.

the chela does not stunt comfrey.

sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts comfrey. sent5: the legs is a Xerox if the fact that the chela does not feminize legs is correct. sent6: the otoscope does blunt and is a kind of a Xerox. sent7: the legs is a kind of a Xerox. sent8: the legs stunts comfrey. sent9: the legs does not feminize legs. sent10: the legs is a astrolabe. sent11: the legs stunts comfrey and does feminize legs if the chela is not a Xerox. sent12: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. sent13: the legs does not consider go-kart. sent14: the chela is alimentative and does stunt mill. sent15: The legs does not feminize legs. sent16: the rarity is not a Xerox.

¬{AB}{b}

sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: ({AR}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent4: {AB}{cu} sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent6: ({CH}{hc} & {AA}{hc}) sent7: {AA}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: {DN}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} -> ({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: ¬{GD}{a} sent14: ({AL}{b} & {CJ}{b}) sent15: ¬{AC}{aa} sent16: ¬{AA}{ce}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the chela does not stunt comfrey. ; $context$ = sent1: if the legs does not stunt comfrey then the chela does feminize legs. sent2: the chela is ontogenetic and feminizes legs. sent3: the fact that the legs does stunt comfrey is not false if the chela does not feminize legs. sent4: the ovenbird stunts comfrey. sent5: the legs is a Xerox if the fact that the chela does not feminize legs is correct. sent6: the otoscope does blunt and is a kind of a Xerox. sent7: the legs is a kind of a Xerox. sent8: the legs stunts comfrey. sent9: the legs does not feminize legs. sent10: the legs is a astrolabe. sent11: the legs stunts comfrey and does feminize legs if the chela is not a Xerox. sent12: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs. sent13: the legs does not consider go-kart. sent14: the chela is alimentative and does stunt mill. sent15: The legs does not feminize legs. sent16: the rarity is not a Xerox. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs.

the chela is a Xerox and stunts comfrey if the legs does not feminize legs.

the legs does not feminize legs.

the teller does not consider girasol.

sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Hecht but it is recreational is not right it is not recreational. sent5: the fact that the teller is conjugal and it does warm does not hold. sent6: that the teller is both not a carry and warmed is not correct. sent7: the teller does not feminize tripod. sent8: if the fact that the redbrush is not a Kiswahili is right then the fact that the teller does not consort bullfighter and is a kind of a Katsuwonidae is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the teller does not carry and does consider triode does not hold. sent10: the fact that the teller is Biedermeier and it is a kind of a Reaper does not hold. sent11: the teller is not a browser. sent12: if something is a Haeckel it does not stunt Californian. sent13: the stockfish is not a carry. sent14: that the spot is warmed and it is a rendezvous does not hold. sent15: if the fact that the teller is not a enervation but it feminizes growl does not hold then it is not warmed. sent16: if the redbrush is a Kiswahili then the teller does consider girasol. sent17: if the fact that the teller does not warm is not false it does not consider girasol. sent18: if the teller unwinds it is not a carry. sent19: something is not a sulfisoxazole if it is a Excellency. sent20: if something is not warmed it does not consider girasol.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{DN}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent3: ¬(¬{CL}{iq} & {ET}{iq}) -> ¬{AA}{iq} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent5: ¬({GB}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{BP}{aa} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{HQ}{aa} & {AF}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent10: ¬({BS}{aa} & {HD}{aa}) sent11: ¬{N}{aa} sent12: (x): {FQ}x -> ¬{CN}x sent13: ¬{AA}{jk} sent14: ¬({AB}{el} & {BD}{el}) sent15: ¬(¬{HA}{aa} & {BH}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent17: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent18: {IK}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent19: (x): {GJ}x -> ¬{EH}x sent20: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the teller does consider girasol.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the teller does not consider girasol. ; $context$ = sent1: if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical. sent2: there is nothing that is not a Hecht and is recreational. sent3: the Wiffle is not a kind of a carry if the fact that it is non-polychromatic and it is a anaphase is wrong. sent4: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Hecht but it is recreational is not right it is not recreational. sent5: the fact that the teller is conjugal and it does warm does not hold. sent6: that the teller is both not a carry and warmed is not correct. sent7: the teller does not feminize tripod. sent8: if the fact that the redbrush is not a Kiswahili is right then the fact that the teller does not consort bullfighter and is a kind of a Katsuwonidae is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the teller does not carry and does consider triode does not hold. sent10: the fact that the teller is Biedermeier and it is a kind of a Reaper does not hold. sent11: the teller is not a browser. sent12: if something is a Haeckel it does not stunt Californian. sent13: the stockfish is not a carry. sent14: that the spot is warmed and it is a rendezvous does not hold. sent15: if the fact that the teller is not a enervation but it feminizes growl does not hold then it is not warmed. sent16: if the redbrush is a Kiswahili then the teller does consider girasol. sent17: if the fact that the teller does not warm is not false it does not consider girasol. sent18: if the teller unwinds it is not a carry. sent19: something is not a sulfisoxazole if it is a Excellency. sent20: if something is not warmed it does not consider girasol. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the teller does not feminize tripod.

the teller does not feminize tripod.

if something considers NASA then it is not mechanical.

the determining does not occur.

sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the stunting tyramine does not occur is false if the caduceanness does not occur. sent5: the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. sent6: that the evergreen does not occur and the victualling does not occur triggers that the yawing does not occur. sent7: the caduceanness does not occur if the yawing does not occur. sent8: the tribalization does not occur and the saccadicness does not occur if the dovetailing occurs. sent9: the feminizing porkchop does not occur if both the suspension and the Churchillianness occurs. sent10: the stunting perambulation occurs. sent11: if the fact that the saccadicness does not occur is not incorrect then the evergreenness does not occur and the victualling does not occur. sent12: if the combing occurs the consorting Leontocebus occurs. sent13: if the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the caduceanness happens is not true then the determining does not occur. sent14: that the part-timeness does not occur yields that the suspension and the reopening happens. sent15: the part-timeness does not occur.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the determining does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the determining does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the victualling and the yawing happens is brought about by the non-evergreenness. sent2: the stunting tyramine happens. sent3: that the feint happens and the dovetail occurs is brought about by that the feminizing porkchop does not occur. sent4: the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the stunting tyramine does not occur is false if the caduceanness does not occur. sent5: the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs. sent6: that the evergreen does not occur and the victualling does not occur triggers that the yawing does not occur. sent7: the caduceanness does not occur if the yawing does not occur. sent8: the tribalization does not occur and the saccadicness does not occur if the dovetailing occurs. sent9: the feminizing porkchop does not occur if both the suspension and the Churchillianness occurs. sent10: the stunting perambulation occurs. sent11: if the fact that the saccadicness does not occur is not incorrect then the evergreenness does not occur and the victualling does not occur. sent12: if the combing occurs the consorting Leontocebus occurs. sent13: if the fact that the evolutionariness does not occur and the caduceanness happens is not true then the determining does not occur. sent14: that the part-timeness does not occur yields that the suspension and the reopening happens. sent15: the part-timeness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs.

the stunting tyramine causes that the determining occurs.

the stunting tyramine happens.

the stem is not non-freelance.

sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not reheat then the stem considers wheeled and it freelances. sent6: the parterre freelances.

{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the stem is not freelance.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the stem is not non-freelance. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled. sent2: the stem does consider wheeled. sent3: everything is not probabilistic. sent4: there exists something such that it reheats. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not reheat then the stem considers wheeled and it freelances. sent6: the parterre freelances. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled.

if there is something such that it does not reheat the stem does consider wheeled.

everything is not probabilistic.

the pentastomid is not a toe-in.

sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pentastomid is a toe-in.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pentastomid is not a toe-in. ; $context$ = sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct.

If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae, and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct.

the Teton is not a Desmodontidae.

the pentastomid is not a toe-in.

sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pentastomid is a toe-in.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pentastomid is not a toe-in. ; $context$ = sent1: the pentastomid is not a toe-in if the Teton frames. sent2: the fact that the Teton is a toe-in and it is a Desmodontidae is not true if it is not a kind of a frame. sent3: the Teton is a girasol if there is something such that that it is not a girasol and it does not kick is false. sent4: if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in. sent5: the Teton is not a Desmodontidae. sent6: if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the Teton considers zinfandel and does not frame does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Teton is not a Desmodontidae that it considers zinfandel and it is not a kind of a frame is not correct.

If the Teton is not a Desmodontidae and it is not a kind of frame, then it is not correct.

if that the fact that that the Teton considers zinfandel and is not a frame hold is not true is correct then the pentastomid is not a kind of a toe-in.

the gate is a Chabad.

sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is not a misfit or both. sent4: there is nothing that either is a horse-cart or does not consort banneret or both. sent5: there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. sent6: the fact that the bunter is a kind of a Chabad or does not consort dichloromethane or both is not true. sent7: that the toupee does stunt dekaliter and/or it is not a expunction is wrong. sent8: the gammon is a kind of a Mayan. sent9: if that the gammon is either polyvalent or a Mayan or both is not true the fact that the gate is a Chabad is right. sent10: that the fact that the gammon is a kind of a Chabad and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan is right is not correct. sent11: if the fact that the bunter feminizes Pectinibranchia but it is not reductionist is incorrect then that the gate is not a Chabad hold. sent12: everything is a kind of a Mayan.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({AR}x v ¬{HU}x) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{BB}x) sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬({A}{b} v ¬{II}{b}) sent7: ¬({HM}{ad} v ¬{FB}{ad}) sent8: {AB}{aa} sent9: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({A}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (x): {AB}x

PROVED

PROVED

the gate is not a Chabad.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gate is a Chabad. ; $context$ = sent1: the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct. sent2: if that the gammon is polyvalent and/or not a Chabad is not right the gate is a Mayan. sent3: there is nothing such that it does stunt Caucasian or is not a misfit or both. sent4: there is nothing that either is a horse-cart or does not consort banneret or both. sent5: there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan. sent6: the fact that the bunter is a kind of a Chabad or does not consort dichloromethane or both is not true. sent7: that the toupee does stunt dekaliter and/or it is not a expunction is wrong. sent8: the gammon is a kind of a Mayan. sent9: if that the gammon is either polyvalent or a Mayan or both is not true the fact that the gate is a Chabad is right. sent10: that the fact that the gammon is a kind of a Chabad and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan is right is not correct. sent11: if the fact that the bunter feminizes Pectinibranchia but it is not reductionist is incorrect then that the gate is not a Chabad hold. sent12: everything is a kind of a Mayan. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the fact that the gammon is polyvalent and/or it is not a Mayan does not hold.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan.

there is nothing such that it is polyvalent and/or it is not a kind of a Mayan.

the gate is a Chabad if the fact that the gammon is polyvalent or is not a Mayan or both is not correct.

that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true.

sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a theology if there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is a blowout. sent6: if the aerie is not uveal then the sunglasses is a blowout and it does consort screen. sent7: if the aerie is a theology the sunglasses is not a kind of a blowout. sent8: the pudge is uveal or it is a theology or both. sent9: the sunglasses is uveal or a blowout or both. sent10: the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. sent11: there exists something such that it consorts screen. sent12: if something is not a kind of a Meir and is not uveal then the tither does not consort screen. sent13: there are uveal things. sent14: the Vernier does consort nympholepsy and is blastomeric. sent15: something is not uveal if that it is a Meir and uveal does not hold. sent16: everything is not a stroma. sent17: everything is not a theology. sent18: the screen is not uveal.

¬{E}{b}

sent1: ({JD}{b} & {CE}{b}) sent2: {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): (¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: ({B}{aa} v {D}{aa}) sent9: ({B}{b} v {E}{b}) sent10: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{eh} sent13: (Ex): {B}x sent14: ({FA}{eq} & {IM}{eq}) sent15: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): ¬{F}x sent17: (x): ¬{D}x sent18: ¬{B}{ae}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tither does not consort screen.

¬{A}{eh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the sunglasses is not a blowout is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sunglasses is noncaloric and partitive. sent2: the pudge is uveal. sent3: if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir. sent4: if the aerie does consort screen the sunglasses is a blowout. sent5: the aerie is not a theology if there exists something such that it is not a stroma and/or it is a blowout. sent6: if the aerie is not uveal then the sunglasses is a blowout and it does consort screen. sent7: if the aerie is a theology the sunglasses is not a kind of a blowout. sent8: the pudge is uveal or it is a theology or both. sent9: the sunglasses is uveal or a blowout or both. sent10: the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal. sent11: there exists something such that it consorts screen. sent12: if something is not a kind of a Meir and is not uveal then the tither does not consort screen. sent13: there are uveal things. sent14: the Vernier does consort nympholepsy and is blastomeric. sent15: something is not uveal if that it is a Meir and uveal does not hold. sent16: everything is not a stroma. sent17: everything is not a theology. sent18: the screen is not uveal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal.

the pudge does consort screen and it is uveal.

if something consorts screen and is uveal the aerie is a Meir.

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both.

sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or it is not a kind of a bunchberry or both.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both.

If the vambrace is either a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic.

if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic.

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both.

sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or it is not a kind of a bunchberry or both.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ewe is mitotic. sent2: the vambrace is a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry. sent3: the vambrace is a neurosurgery. sent4: if the man-eater is mitotic the vambrace is mitotic. sent5: if the fact that the fact that something is not mitotic or does load gyroscope or both is not wrong is not correct then the fact that it is not a kind of a bunchberry is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the vambrace does not access thrash or does not disharmonize or both is false. sent7: the ewe is not synchronous but it does isolate daraf. sent8: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both. sent9: if the ewe is mitotic then the man-eater is mitotic. sent10: if the vambrace is mitotic then the ewe is mitotic. sent11: the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is not a neurosurgery. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vambrace is not a neurosurgery and/or it is not a bunchberry.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the man-eater is not mitotic.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: the man-eater is mitotic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the man-eater is not mitotic if the vambrace is either not a neurosurgery or not a bunchberry or both.

If the vambrace is not a neurosurgery or a bunchberry, the man-eater is not mitotic.

the ewe is mitotic.

the nonreciprocalness does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the fact that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness happens is wrong is not incorrect if the battue does not occur. sent4: the ideographicness happens and the uneasiness occurs if the opening does not occur. sent5: the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens. sent6: the subversion happens or the stomping occurs or both. sent7: the Glaswegianness occurs. sent8: that the destructibleness does not occur triggers that the da'wah happens and the stocking does not occur. sent9: if the dogtrot does not occur the fact that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens is not right. sent10: if that the battue occurs and the incidence does not occur is incorrect then the battue does not occur. sent11: if the ideographicness happens the dogtrot does not occur and the extraterritorialness does not occur. sent12: the nonreciprocalness does not occur if the constricting occurs. sent13: the joyfulness does not occur if that the stocking does not occur hold. sent14: the joyfulness happens. sent15: the non-stablingness and the non-Gibraltarianness occurs if the chopper does not occur. sent16: the destructibleness does not occur if that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness occurs is false. sent17: the isolating lawman does not occur if that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens does not hold. sent18: the nonreciprocalness happens if that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur is not correct. sent19: if the isolating lawman does not occur the chopper does not occur and the choreographicness does not occur.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the nonreciprocalness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nonreciprocalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the joyfulness does not occur is not incorrect that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur does not hold. sent2: if the stabling does not occur the fact that the battue but not the incidence happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the fact that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness happens is wrong is not incorrect if the battue does not occur. sent4: the ideographicness happens and the uneasiness occurs if the opening does not occur. sent5: the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens. sent6: the subversion happens or the stomping occurs or both. sent7: the Glaswegianness occurs. sent8: that the destructibleness does not occur triggers that the da'wah happens and the stocking does not occur. sent9: if the dogtrot does not occur the fact that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens is not right. sent10: if that the battue occurs and the incidence does not occur is incorrect then the battue does not occur. sent11: if the ideographicness happens the dogtrot does not occur and the extraterritorialness does not occur. sent12: the nonreciprocalness does not occur if the constricting occurs. sent13: the joyfulness does not occur if that the stocking does not occur hold. sent14: the joyfulness happens. sent15: the non-stablingness and the non-Gibraltarianness occurs if the chopper does not occur. sent16: the destructibleness does not occur if that the destructibleness and the non-etiologicalness occurs is false. sent17: the isolating lawman does not occur if that the atomisticness and the isolating lawman happens does not hold. sent18: the nonreciprocalness happens if that the nonreciprocalness does not occur and the constricting does not occur is not correct. sent19: if the isolating lawman does not occur the chopper does not occur and the choreographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the fact that the constricting happens and/or the joyfulness happens hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the joyfulness happens.

the joyfulness happens.

the non-nonreciprocalness is brought about by the constricting and/or that the joyfulness happens.

the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true.

sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is both not a antifeminist and mucinous. sent4: the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. sent5: something is gymnospermous if it is not a Alhazen and is satiate. sent6: the fact that that something isolates parapsychology and is percussive is right is false if it does not access chloropicrin. sent7: if the sandpiper is not a antifeminist it is a kind of a Bradley and it is a former. sent8: something is a Alhazen. sent9: something is spicate thing that is prenuptial. sent10: the Brazil is respiratory but not non-gymnospermous. sent11: there exists something such that it is a bongo. sent12: there is something such that it is radiopaque and is a kind of a margin. sent13: the fact that something is a whiff and it exudes hold. sent14: the sandpiper is not a antifeminist if the diploid is not a antifeminist but mucinous. sent15: the chloropicrin is gymnospermous. sent16: the couple is not cheerful. sent17: the amorphophallus satiates if the sandpiper is former. sent18: if that something is not a Alhazen and it is not satiate is not right it is a kind of a Alhazen. sent19: something is gymnospermous. sent20: if the couple is not cheerful then it is not axillary. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it isolates parapsychology and it is percussive is not right the amorphophallus is not a Alhazen.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: {B}{em} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬{F}{a} sent3: ¬{M}{e} -> (¬{J}{d} & {L}{d}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent7: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (Ex): ({DL}x & {DB}x) sent10: ({CR}{fn} & {B}{fn}) sent11: (Ex): {GI}x sent12: (Ex): ({CP}x & {FA}x) sent13: (Ex): ({DP}x & {DF}x) sent14: (¬{J}{d} & {L}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent15: {B}{a} sent16: ¬{K}{b} sent17: {H}{c} -> {C}{fm} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent19: (Ex): {B}x sent20: ¬{K}{b} -> ¬{G}{b} sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}{fm}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the couple is gymnospermous.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that that something is a Alhazen and it is gymnospermous is not wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrocarbon is gymnospermous. sent2: if there is something such that it is not axillary the chloropicrin does not access chloropicrin. sent3: if the liman is not a shoreline the diploid is both not a antifeminist and mucinous. sent4: the chloropicrin is a Alhazen. sent5: something is gymnospermous if it is not a Alhazen and is satiate. sent6: the fact that that something isolates parapsychology and is percussive is right is false if it does not access chloropicrin. sent7: if the sandpiper is not a antifeminist it is a kind of a Bradley and it is a former. sent8: something is a Alhazen. sent9: something is spicate thing that is prenuptial. sent10: the Brazil is respiratory but not non-gymnospermous. sent11: there exists something such that it is a bongo. sent12: there is something such that it is radiopaque and is a kind of a margin. sent13: the fact that something is a whiff and it exudes hold. sent14: the sandpiper is not a antifeminist if the diploid is not a antifeminist but mucinous. sent15: the chloropicrin is gymnospermous. sent16: the couple is not cheerful. sent17: the amorphophallus satiates if the sandpiper is former. sent18: if that something is not a Alhazen and it is not satiate is not right it is a kind of a Alhazen. sent19: something is gymnospermous. sent20: if the couple is not cheerful then it is not axillary. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it isolates parapsychology and it is percussive is not right the amorphophallus is not a Alhazen. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent15 -> int1: the chloropicrin is a kind of a Alhazen and is gymnospermous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chloropicrin is a Alhazen.

the chloropicrin is a Alhazen.

the chloropicrin is gymnospermous.

the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan.

sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the poppet is a plumbism is true the fact that it is both a dastard and not incorporeal is wrong. sent5: if the poppet circumnavigates JV that it does access spritsail and is not a smoothbark is false. sent6: the spritsail does circumnavigate JV. sent7: the poppet is a Catalan. sent8: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and it is a Tibetan does not hold. sent9: if the poppet is basal the fact that that it is a Abkhaz and it is not a Tibetan is correct is not correct. sent10: if something does muckrake then that it is both a sociobiologist and not an assay does not hold. sent11: The JV does circumnavigate poppet. sent12: if something does circumnavigate JV the fact that it is a kind of a dastard that is a kind of a Tibetan is wrong. sent13: that something is both semiotics and not pyrochemical is not correct if it isolates BR. sent14: the fact that the poppet is both a tobacco and not a lip-gloss is false. sent15: the fact that the fact that the poppet is malodorous thing that does not circumnavigate JV does not hold hold. sent16: that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV.

({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: {A}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({EP}{bc} & ¬{A}{bc}) sent4: {JB}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{IG}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({HU}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa}) sent6: {A}{ds} sent7: {BO}{aa} sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: {CQ}{aa} -> ¬({CP}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {IN}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{IQ}x) sent11: {AD}{ab} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {BN}x -> ¬({IT}x & ¬{AC}x) sent14: ¬({BI}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) sent15: ¬({G}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the poppet is a dastard but it is not a Tibetan. ; $context$ = sent1: the poppet does circumnavigate JV. sent2: that the poppet is a dastard and is a Tibetan does not hold if it does circumnavigate JV. sent3: that that the stitch is a kind of a workroom and does not circumnavigate JV is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the poppet is a plumbism is true the fact that it is both a dastard and not incorporeal is wrong. sent5: if the poppet circumnavigates JV that it does access spritsail and is not a smoothbark is false. sent6: the spritsail does circumnavigate JV. sent7: the poppet is a Catalan. sent8: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and it is a Tibetan does not hold. sent9: if the poppet is basal the fact that that it is a Abkhaz and it is not a Tibetan is correct is not correct. sent10: if something does muckrake then that it is both a sociobiologist and not an assay does not hold. sent11: The JV does circumnavigate poppet. sent12: if something does circumnavigate JV the fact that it is a kind of a dastard that is a kind of a Tibetan is wrong. sent13: that something is both semiotics and not pyrochemical is not correct if it isolates BR. sent14: the fact that the poppet is both a tobacco and not a lip-gloss is false. sent15: the fact that the fact that the poppet is malodorous thing that does not circumnavigate JV does not hold hold. sent16: that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the fact that the poppet is a dastard and is not a kind of a Tibetan is not correct if it circumnavigates JV.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV.

that something is a dastard but it is not a kind of a Tibetan is not right if it circumnavigates JV.

the poppet does circumnavigate JV.

the servileness does not occur.

sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: {GG} sent2: (¬{M} & ¬{IP}) -> {JC} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{AA} sent5: ¬({C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} v ¬{B}) sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} -> {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the servileness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the servileness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs.

The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not happen.

the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur.

the servileness does not occur.

sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: {GG} sent2: (¬{M} & ¬{IP}) -> {JC} sent3: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{AA} sent5: ¬({C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} v ¬{B}) sent8: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {B} -> {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent11: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the servileness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the servileness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the niceness occurs. sent2: the variegating occurs if the isolating minster does not occur and the outbreak does not occur. sent3: the proverbialness does not occur and the rocket does not occur. sent4: the proverbialness does not occur. sent5: the servileness does not occur if that the .38-caliberness occurs and/or the demoralization does not occur does not hold. sent6: the Energy does not occur if that the Energy occurs and the reel does not occur is not correct. sent7: if the Energy does not occur then that the .38-caliberness happens and/or the demoralization does not occur is not true. sent8: that the Energy happens and the reel does not occur is incorrect if the crabbing occurs. sent9: if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct. sent10: if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs. sent11: the demoralization is caused by that the proverbialness occurs but the rocketing does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the demoralization happens.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the proverbialness does not occur and the rocketing does not occur then the demoralization occurs.

The demoralization occurs if the rocketing does not occur.

if the demoralization occurs then that the servileness occurs is correct.

that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct.

sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.

The isolating antediluvian does not cause the brimlessness.

if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur.

that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct.

sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the marsupialness occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the integration occurs if the propagation happens. sent2: that the featherbedding does not occur is prevented by the immatureness. sent3: that the integration and the augmentation occurs brings about that the loading waltzer does not occur. sent4: if the worldliness happens then the fact that the axialness but not the unostentatiousness happens is not correct. sent5: the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs. sent6: the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold. sent7: if that the accessing featheredge happens is true the nebule happens. sent8: the marsupial occurs and the isolating antediluvian does not occur if that the worldliness happens hold. sent9: the Reformation occurs and the accessing featheredge occurs. sent10: that the loading waltzer occurs is prevented by that the integration does not occur and the augmentation does not occur. sent11: if the fact that either the worldliness occurs or the loading waltzer does not occur or both is not correct the brimlessness does not occur. sent12: that the augmentation does not occur if that the propagation does not occur and the featherbedding happens is wrong hold. sent13: the immatureness happens. sent14: both the worldliness and the brimlessness occurs if the fact that the loading waltzer does not occur is not wrong. sent15: the integration does not occur but the strengthening happens if the nebule happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marsupial but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the brimlessness occurs.; sent11 & sent6 -> int2: the brimlessness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the brimlessness is caused by that the marsupialness but not the isolating antediluvian occurs.

The isolating antediluvian is not the cause of the brimlessness.

the fact that the worldliness happens or the loading waltzer does not occur or both does not hold.

the bosom is not a kind of a repair.

sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not phonic. sent4: the sylph is not phonic. sent5: the bosom is not phonic. sent6: the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse. sent7: something is not obtuse. sent8: the sylph is not a kind of a repair if the turning is a kind of a complaisance that is phonic. sent9: the sylph is not a repair. sent10: that the bosom is not a repair is not wrong if the turning is phonic but it is not a complaisance. sent11: if the turning is a complaisance and it is a kind of a repair the bosom is not phonic.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bosom is a repair.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bosom is not a kind of a repair. ; $context$ = sent1: something repairs if it is not obtuse. sent2: if the fact that the bosom is a kind of a repair and it is phonic is true the turning is not a complaisance. sent3: the turning is not a kind of a repair if the bosom is a complaisance but it is not phonic. sent4: the sylph is not phonic. sent5: the bosom is not phonic. sent6: the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse. sent7: something is not obtuse. sent8: the sylph is not a kind of a repair if the turning is a kind of a complaisance that is phonic. sent9: the sylph is not a repair. sent10: that the bosom is not a repair is not wrong if the turning is phonic but it is not a complaisance. sent11: if the turning is a complaisance and it is a kind of a repair the bosom is not phonic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not obtuse.

something is not obtuse.

the sylph is a complaisance if there exists something such that it is non-obtuse.

the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong.

¬{F}

sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HI} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{EN} -> ¬{EQ} sent4: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{ER} -> {DP} sent9: ¬{IG} -> {CI} sent10: {IE} sent11: ¬{A} -> {C} sent12: (¬{IC} v ¬{AH}) sent13: {CM} sent14: ¬{CQ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the assist and the mikvah happens.

({CM} & {HI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold.

Either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur.

if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true.

the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong.

¬{F}

sent1: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {HI} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬{EN} -> ¬{EQ} sent4: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{B} -> {C} sent7: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent8: ¬{ER} -> {DP} sent9: ¬{IG} -> {CI} sent10: {IE} sent11: ¬{A} -> {C} sent12: (¬{IC} v ¬{AH}) sent13: {CM} sent14: ¬{CQ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the assist and the mikvah happens.

({CM} & {HI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the solelessness but not the strangulation happens is wrong then the mikvah occurs. sent2: that the hurl occurs and the inactivity happens causes that the remit does not occur. sent3: the nones does not occur if the traditionalism does not occur. sent4: that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold. sent5: the circumnavigating scrambled does not occur if the remit does not occur. sent6: if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the isolating popularity does not occur and the Canadianness does not occur is not false does not hold then the circumnavigating scrambled happens. sent8: the addiction occurs if the fact that the apoplecticness does not occur is right. sent9: if the worship does not occur the theology happens. sent10: the rubdown happens. sent11: if the solelessness does not occur the fact that the hurling occurs is true. sent12: the fact that the Calvary does not occur and/or the .38-caliberness does not occur is not false. sent13: the assist happens. sent14: the fact that the nullification does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that either the solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur or both hold.

The solelessness does not occur or the strangulation does not occur.

if the strangulation does not occur the hurl occurs.

the hydraulicsness occurs.

sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur.

{B}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hydraulicsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur.

If the autobiographicalness does not occur, the leak is wrong.

the autobiographicalness does not occur.

the hydraulicsness occurs.

sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur.

{B}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hydraulicsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens. sent2: the leaking does not occur. sent3: the autobiographicalness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: that the leak happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is not right.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the leak occurs and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong if the autobiographicalness does not occur.

If the autobiographicalness does not occur, then the leak is wrong.

if the fact that the leaking happens and/or the isolating sentimentalist does not occur is wrong then the hydraulicsness happens.

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.

that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold.

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

If the fact that it is not timid and is a Epipremnum is true, then the Sharpie busies.

if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible.

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

If the fact that it is not a kind of timid and is a Epipremnum is not true, then the Sharpie busies.

something is a snuffler if it overdoses.

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

The fact that the Sharpie is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false.

the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler.

sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

({A}{b} & {C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the psephologist is both convertible and a snuffler does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psephologist is a convertible and is a snuffler. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Sharpie is busy then the psephologist is a convertible. sent2: something is a snuffler if it overdoses. sent3: if there is something such that it is not convertible then that the psephologist is a kind of a convertible and it is a snuffler does not hold. sent4: that the Sharpie is not a kind of a timid and is a kind of a Epipremnum does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it does not overdose then the Sharpie is not non-busy but inconvertible. sent6: if the fact that that the psephologist is both not a Homarus and not unmown is not right hold the fact that it does overdose is not false. sent7: that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false. sent8: the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the Sharpie is busy.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the psephologist is a kind of a convertible.; sent2 -> int3: the psephologist is a snuffler if it overdoses.; sent6 & sent7 -> int4: the psephologist does overdose.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the psephologist is a snuffler.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sharpie busies if the fact that it is not a kind of a timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

The fact that Sharpie is not timid and is a Epipremnum is not true.

that that the psephologist is not a kind of a Homarus and it is not unmown is true is false.

the Frisbee is not a strainer.

sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial.

¬{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Frisbee is not a strainer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless.

There is something that is artless and nonechoic.

the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless.

the Frisbee is not a strainer.

sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial.

¬{E}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Frisbee is not a strainer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless. sent2: the Frisbee is insentient if there is something such that it is a kind of nonechoic thing that is artless. sent3: the Frisbee is postmillennial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is nonechoic and is artless.

There is something that is nonechoic and artless.

the Frisbee is postmillennial.

that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold.

sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs.

¬({D} & {C})

sent1: {IJ} sent2: {D} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ({CB} & {CQ}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({GR} & {BL})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subvention and the detailing happens.

The detailing happens after the subvention.

the darting happens if the detailing happens.

that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold.

sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs.

¬({D} & {C})

sent1: {IJ} sent2: {D} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ({CB} & {CQ}) sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ({GR} & {BL})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that both the steroidalness and the darting occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the battledore happens. sent2: the steroidalness happens. sent3: the subvention and the detailing happens. sent4: the Ghanaianness occurs and the hurling occurs. sent5: the darting happens if the detailing happens. sent6: both the seediness and the bilabial occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the details occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the darting happens.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subvention and the detailing happens.

The detailing happens.

the steroidalness happens.

the riblessness occurs.

sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the riblessness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both.

The mountaineering occurs or it is confusing.

that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing.

the riblessness occurs.

sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the riblessness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both.

Either the confusing happens or the mountaineer occurs.

if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens.

the riblessness occurs.

sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right.

{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the riblessness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the riblessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both. sent2: if the mountaineering happens the Mercurialness happens. sent3: if the fact that not the mountaineering but the riblessness occurs does not hold then the riblessness does not occur. sent4: the fact that if that the dissolve and the prawning occurs is not correct the cannon does not occur is true. sent5: the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens. sent6: the Mercurialness happens and the confusing happens if the cannon does not occur. sent7: that the control does not occur and the isolating HA does not occur prevents that the exhortation occurs. sent8: that the Mercurialness occurs is brought about by the confusing. sent9: if the exhortation does not occur that the dissolving and the prawn occurs is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 & sent2 -> int1: the Mercurialness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the confusing happens or the mountaineering occurs or both.

The mountaineering can be confusing or it can be both.

the riblessness occurs if the Mercurialness happens.

that the developer is not stomatous hold.

sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the developer is not stomatous.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the developer is not stomatous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Priestley.

There is something called a Priestley.

the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley.

that the developer is not stomatous hold.

sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the developer is not stomatous.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the developer is not stomatous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal but it is not hemic does not hold if there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent2: something is not non-afebrile if it is a kind of a Priestley. sent3: the fact that the seller is not non-oropharyngeal but hemic does not hold if there is something such that the fact that it is a Priestley is not wrong. sent4: the meanie is oropharyngeal if the seller is not oropharyngeal. sent5: the northwester is viricidal and/or it is oropharyngeal. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Priestley. sent7: if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the seller is oropharyngeal thing that is not hemic is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and it is not hemic does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Priestley.

There is a thing called a Priestley.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is oropharyngeal and not hemic does not hold then the developer is stomatous.

there are slow and non-downmarket things.

sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. sent5: if the AS is a kind of a dinky it is not a messiahship and it is not a drummer. sent6: if the fact that something is not a JV and/or it is not cannibalistic is true then the outpost is not a chelonian. sent7: the fact that something is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not true if it is not angiomatous. sent8: the AS is a dinky. sent9: the inductee is not a drummer if the AS is not a messiahship and it is not a kind of a drummer. sent10: if the inductee is not a Steele but it does circumnavigate outpost then the fact that the achene is not cannibalistic is not false. sent11: the outpost is slow. sent12: the foster-daughter is downmarket. sent13: something is not angiomatous and/or does subvocalize if it is not a chelonian. sent14: if something is not a drummer then it is not a Steele and it does circumnavigate outpost. sent15: there is something such that it does slow. sent16: there is something such that it is not downmarket. sent17: if the outpost is a kind of a cycle then it does slow and it does not amend. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not correct the flirt is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

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

PROVED

PROVED

the flirt is a will-o'-the-wisp.

{A}{eo}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there are slow and non-downmarket things. ; $context$ = sent1: the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp. sent2: the outpost is a incomprehension. sent3: something that either is not angiomatous or does subvocalize or both is not angiomatous. sent4: the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. sent5: if the AS is a kind of a dinky it is not a messiahship and it is not a drummer. sent6: if the fact that something is not a JV and/or it is not cannibalistic is true then the outpost is not a chelonian. sent7: the fact that something is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not true if it is not angiomatous. sent8: the AS is a dinky. sent9: the inductee is not a drummer if the AS is not a messiahship and it is not a kind of a drummer. sent10: if the inductee is not a Steele but it does circumnavigate outpost then the fact that the achene is not cannibalistic is not false. sent11: the outpost is slow. sent12: the foster-daughter is downmarket. sent13: something is not angiomatous and/or does subvocalize if it is not a chelonian. sent14: if something is not a drummer then it is not a Steele and it does circumnavigate outpost. sent15: there is something such that it does slow. sent16: there is something such that it is not downmarket. sent17: if the outpost is a kind of a cycle then it does slow and it does not amend. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a will-o'-the-wisp and not a player is not correct the flirt is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the outpost is slow but not downmarket.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp.

the outpost does slow but it is not downmarket if it is a will-o'-the-wisp.

the outpost is a kind of a will-o'-the-wisp.

the frijolito is not a grapefruit.

sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

¬{A}{aa}

sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HI}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}{fc} & ¬{G}{fc}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent5: {HC}{ir} -> ¬{EM}{ir} sent6: {D}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AE}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent10: ({GQ}{u} v ¬{EU}{u}) -> ¬{A}{u} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x v {D}x) sent15: (x): ¬({E}x v {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent17: ({AL}{aa} v ¬{CO}{aa}) sent18: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent19: ¬{I}{a} sent20: ¬{B}{ht}

PROVED

PROVED

the perigee is not a kind of a Myrmidon.

¬{AA}{fc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the frijolito is not a grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

It doesn't circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not.

the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition.

the frijolito is not a grapefruit.

sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

¬{A}{aa}

sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HI}{aa} v ¬{AA}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}{fc} & ¬{G}{fc}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent5: {HC}{ir} -> ¬{EM}{ir} sent6: {D}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent7: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬{AE}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent10: ({GQ}{u} v ¬{EU}{u}) -> ¬{A}{u} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x v {D}x) sent15: (x): ¬({E}x v {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: (x): ({A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent17: ({AL}{aa} v ¬{CO}{aa}) sent18: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent19: ¬{I}{a} sent20: ¬{B}{ht}

PROVED

PROVED

the perigee is not a kind of a Myrmidon.

¬{AA}{fc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the frijolito is not a grapefruit. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Myrmidon then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent2: the frijolito either is a exobiology or is not a Myrmidon or both. sent3: the fact that the perigee isolates Milne but it does not clapboard does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a katharometer. sent4: either something is a grapefruit or it does circumnavigate Yahweh or both if it is not a Esquire. sent5: if the potage does pander it is not a loaner. sent6: if the frijolito is a parted that it does circumnavigate Yahweh and is not a kind of a Esquire is incorrect. sent7: if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent8: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh if it does not isolate antediluvian. sent9: if either something is a grapefruit or it circumnavigates Yahweh or both then it is not a kind of a Myrmidon. sent10: if the crofter is either conductive or not a Jurassic or both then that it is not a grapefruit is correct. sent11: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit. sent12: the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition. sent13: the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh. sent14: that either something is a kind of a Njord or it is a parted or both is not correct if it is not reputable. sent15: the fact that something is not a kind of a Esquire is not wrong if the fact that it either is a Njord or is a parted or both does not hold. sent16: something is not a Myrmidon if it is a grapefruit or does not circumnavigate Yahweh or both. sent17: either the frijolito is a sickbay or it is not a kind of a Wembley or both. sent18: something is not reputable if that it isolates Milne and does not clapboard is not right. sent19: that the legatee is not a katharometer is not wrong. sent20: the aging does not circumnavigate Yahweh. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the frijolito is a Myrmidon and/or is not an apparition it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the frijolito does not circumnavigate Yahweh.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is a Myrmidon and/or it is not an apparition then it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

It does not circumnavigate Yahweh if something is a Myrmidon or not.

the frijolito is not a kind of a grapefruit if it does not circumnavigate Yahweh.

the commonsness occurs.

sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the isolating Sheetrock occurs.

{DC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens.

Both the fossiliferousness and the NMR occur.

that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence.

the commonsness occurs.

sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the isolating Sheetrock occurs.

{DC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens.

The fossiliferousness and the NMR happen.

the isolating competence occurs.

the commonsness occurs.

sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the isolating Sheetrock occurs.

{DC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commonsness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commonsness occurs and the isolating competence happens is wrong if the fact that the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur hold. sent2: both the fold and the universalisticness occurs. sent3: if the isolating Nepal occurs then the loading vasopressor does not occur or the correctedness does not occur or both. sent4: the circumnavigating patrimony does not occur if that the generosity but not the moonshining happens does not hold. sent5: that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs. sent6: if the advanced happens the geriatricness does not occur. sent7: the isolating competence occurs. sent8: that the accessing Acanthocereus happens but the hircineness does not occur triggers the non-centroidalness. sent9: if the centroidalness does not occur then the counterrevolution occurs. sent10: if the pluralisticness does not occur the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent11: the tirade does not occur if the administering does not occur and the attendance does not occur. sent12: if the downhill occurs then the accessing Acanthocereus but not the hircineness occurs. sent13: that the fact that the generosity but not the moonshining occurs does not hold if the counterrevolution happens is true. sent14: the isolating Sheetrock happens if the nonexistentness occurs. sent15: the fact that the NMR or the fossiliferousness or both happens is true if the circumnavigating solvation does not occur. sent16: if the tirade does not occur both the downhill and the biochemicalness occurs. sent17: the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens. sent18: that the circumnavigating solvation happens is triggered by the isolating competence. sent19: the non-geriatricness results in that the isolating Nepal happens and the isolating sabin happens. ; $proof$ =

sent17 -> int1: the NMR happens.; sent18 & sent7 -> int2: the circumnavigating solvation happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the NMR and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fossiliferousness happens and the NMR happens.

The fossiliferousness and the NMR occur.

that the commonsness occurs is prevented by that the NMR happens and the circumnavigating solvation occurs.

the freshening does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬(¬{JI} & {HD}) -> ¬{EJ} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent7: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the freshening does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect.

The bracteolateness does not occur if the isolating osteopathy happens.

the isolating osteopathy happens.

the freshening does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬(¬{JI} & {HD}) -> ¬{EJ} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent7: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the freshening does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bracteolateness and the flash happens is not true. sent2: if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect. sent3: the isolating osteopathy happens. sent4: the Ramadan does not occur if that the Finnishness does not occur and the forgettableness occurs is not right. sent5: if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur. sent6: the freshening does not occur if that the bracteolateness occurs is right. sent7: if the isolating osteopathy happens the fact that the fact that the bracteolateness occurs and the flashing happens is not right is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the non-bracteolateness and the flash happens does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the isolating osteopathy happens then that the bracteolateness does not occur and the flash happens is incorrect.

The bracteolateness does not happen if the isolating osteopathy happens.

if that the non-bracteolateness and the flashing occurs is not right then the freshening does not occur.

the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel.

sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a bethel. sent3: the Burgess is pregnant. sent4: something is a Laudo if it does access kumquat. sent5: if something circumnavigates barricaded it is odorous. sent6: if something does circumnavigate agoraphobia the fact that it does not circumnavigate etude and does not access eggnog is wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared. sent8: something does not circumnavigate apprenticed if it does circumnavigate WAC and it is pregnant. sent9: if something does not circumnavigate barricaded it is non-odorous and/or it is not a bethel. sent10: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate barricaded if it does access eggnog. sent11: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate agoraphobia and is acentric if the crapaud is not a kind of a Weld. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat. sent13: the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. sent14: if there is something such that it is nonproprietary then the kumquat accesses kumquat. sent15: that the kumquat does not circumnavigate barricaded and is not odorous is wrong. sent16: that something does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a Weld is false if it does not circumnavigate apprenticed. sent17: if the kumquat is non-odorous the eggnog does access kumquat. sent18: the Burgess does circumnavigate WAC.

({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the eggnog is a kind of a Laudo.

{HH}{ij}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kumquat does access kumquat but it is not a kind of a bethel. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a kind of a Weld is false then the crapaud is not a Weld. sent2: the eggnog accesses kumquat if the kumquat is not a kind of a bethel. sent3: the Burgess is pregnant. sent4: something is a Laudo if it does access kumquat. sent5: if something circumnavigates barricaded it is odorous. sent6: if something does circumnavigate agoraphobia the fact that it does not circumnavigate etude and does not access eggnog is wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared. sent8: something does not circumnavigate apprenticed if it does circumnavigate WAC and it is pregnant. sent9: if something does not circumnavigate barricaded it is non-odorous and/or it is not a bethel. sent10: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate barricaded if it does access eggnog. sent11: the dihydrostreptomycin does circumnavigate agoraphobia and is acentric if the crapaud is not a kind of a Weld. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat. sent13: the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false. sent14: if there is something such that it is nonproprietary then the kumquat accesses kumquat. sent15: that the kumquat does not circumnavigate barricaded and is not odorous is wrong. sent16: that something does not circumnavigate Melanchthon and is a Weld is false if it does not circumnavigate apprenticed. sent17: if the kumquat is non-odorous the eggnog does access kumquat. sent18: the Burgess does circumnavigate WAC. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false.

the fact that the kedgeree is not nonproprietary and is not a pillared is false.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is not nonproprietary and it is not a pillared does not hold then the kumquat does access kumquat.

the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true.

sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the hardinggrass does unpack.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both.

It doesn't unpack if it isn't a aldosteronism or a kind of dispensability.

if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability.

the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true.

sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the hardinggrass does unpack.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hardinggrass is not a Dalian it is not a aldosteronism and/or it is a dispensability. sent2: something does not unpack if it is not a aldosteronism or is a kind of a dispensability or both. sent3: if something that isolates stingaree-bush does not unpack it is not a Dalian. sent4: if the hardinggrass is a dispensability it does not unpack. sent5: if something is a dispensability then it does not unpack. sent6: the hardinggrass is not a Dalian. sent7: if the bohrium is a kind of a Dalian then the hardinggrass unpacks. sent8: something isolates stingaree-bush but it does not unpack if it is multicultural. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the hardinggrass does not unpack is correct if either it is not a aldosteronism or it is a kind of a dispensability or both.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: either the hardinggrass is not a aldosteronism or it is a dispensability or both.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance