Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

either the operations or the hearts or both happens.

sent1: the two-piece occurs. sent2: the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece. sent3: if that the awkwardness does not occur is not correct the hearts happens.

({D} v {C})

sent1: {A} sent2: {A} -> {B} sent3: {B} -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = either the operations or the hearts or both happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the two-piece occurs. sent2: the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece. sent3: if that the awkwardness does not occur is not correct the hearts happens. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the awkwardness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the hearts occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece.

The two-piece prevents the non-awkwardness.

the two-piece occurs.

either the operations or the hearts or both happens.

sent1: the two-piece occurs. sent2: the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece. sent3: if that the awkwardness does not occur is not correct the hearts happens.

({D} v {C})

sent1: {A} sent2: {A} -> {B} sent3: {B} -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = either the operations or the hearts or both happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the two-piece occurs. sent2: the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece. sent3: if that the awkwardness does not occur is not correct the hearts happens. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the awkwardness happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the hearts occurs.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece.

The non-awkwardness is prevented by the two-piece.

if that the awkwardness does not occur is not correct the hearts happens.

that the disavowal or the Hugoesqueness or both happens is not true.

sent1: both the statisticalness and the scrambling occurs. sent2: if the statisticalness does not occur the fact that either the disavowal or the Hugoesqueness or both happens is not true. sent3: the disavowal is triggered by the scrambling.

¬({C} v {D})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the disavowal occurs and/or the Hugoesqueness occurs is false.

¬({C} v {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the disavowal or the Hugoesqueness or both happens is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: both the statisticalness and the scrambling occurs. sent2: if the statisticalness does not occur the fact that either the disavowal or the Hugoesqueness or both happens is not true. sent3: the disavowal is triggered by the scrambling. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the scramble occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the disavowal happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the statisticalness and the scrambling occurs.

both the statisticalness and the scrambling occurs.

the disavowal is triggered by the scrambling.

the finder is not tractive.

sent1: the finder is a kind of a pew if something does antique packsaddle and it is a kind of a defalcation. sent2: there is something such that it does not dissimulate and does antique exposition. sent3: if something does not antique Ficus then it is not a pew and it is not non-tractive. sent4: the finder is a pew if something that does not antique packsaddle is a kind of a defalcation. sent5: the Ojibwa is not Phoenician if something is not a jaconet and is not a kind of a Wayne. sent6: the Levant does not antique packsaddle. sent7: if something is a pew it is not tractive. sent8: something is not a jaconet and it is not a Wayne. sent9: there exists something such that it does not antique packsaddle. sent10: the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): (¬{BU}x & {BP}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

the finder is tractive.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finder is not tractive. ; $context$ = sent1: the finder is a kind of a pew if something does antique packsaddle and it is a kind of a defalcation. sent2: there is something such that it does not dissimulate and does antique exposition. sent3: if something does not antique Ficus then it is not a pew and it is not non-tractive. sent4: the finder is a pew if something that does not antique packsaddle is a kind of a defalcation. sent5: the Ojibwa is not Phoenician if something is not a jaconet and is not a kind of a Wayne. sent6: the Levant does not antique packsaddle. sent7: if something is a pew it is not tractive. sent8: something is not a jaconet and it is not a Wayne. sent9: there exists something such that it does not antique packsaddle. sent10: the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: something does not antique packsaddle but it is a kind of a defalcation.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the finder is a pew is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int3: the finder is not tractive if it is a pew.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation.

The Levant is not an antique packaddle.

the finder is a pew if something that does not antique packsaddle is a kind of a defalcation.

the finder is not tractive.

sent1: the finder is a kind of a pew if something does antique packsaddle and it is a kind of a defalcation. sent2: there is something such that it does not dissimulate and does antique exposition. sent3: if something does not antique Ficus then it is not a pew and it is not non-tractive. sent4: the finder is a pew if something that does not antique packsaddle is a kind of a defalcation. sent5: the Ojibwa is not Phoenician if something is not a jaconet and is not a kind of a Wayne. sent6: the Levant does not antique packsaddle. sent7: if something is a pew it is not tractive. sent8: something is not a jaconet and it is not a Wayne. sent9: there exists something such that it does not antique packsaddle. sent10: the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): (¬{BU}x & {BP}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

the finder is tractive.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finder is not tractive. ; $context$ = sent1: the finder is a kind of a pew if something does antique packsaddle and it is a kind of a defalcation. sent2: there is something such that it does not dissimulate and does antique exposition. sent3: if something does not antique Ficus then it is not a pew and it is not non-tractive. sent4: the finder is a pew if something that does not antique packsaddle is a kind of a defalcation. sent5: the Ojibwa is not Phoenician if something is not a jaconet and is not a kind of a Wayne. sent6: the Levant does not antique packsaddle. sent7: if something is a pew it is not tractive. sent8: something is not a jaconet and it is not a Wayne. sent9: there exists something such that it does not antique packsaddle. sent10: the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: something does not antique packsaddle but it is a kind of a defalcation.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: that the finder is a pew is not incorrect.; sent7 -> int3: the finder is not tractive if it is a pew.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Levant does not antique packsaddle and is a kind of a defalcation.

The Levant is a kind of defalcation.

if something is a pew it is not tractive.

the sclerite does antique creaminess.

sent1: if the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus and is a latitude the sclerite is a generation. sent2: the sclerite does not antique regress and is inward. sent3: the sclerite is a generation if the dibucaine is a Catharanthus and it is a latitude. sent4: if the fact that the dibucaine is not isotonic but it is a hypochlorite is wrong then it is not integumentary. sent5: that the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus is right. sent6: the dibucaine is both not a Catharanthus and a latitude. sent7: the carnotite is a kind of a latitude. sent8: if that the sclerite is a kind of a latitude is not false then that it is a kind of a generation is not wrong.

{A}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the paramecium does antique creaminess.

{A}{bl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sclerite does antique creaminess. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus and is a latitude the sclerite is a generation. sent2: the sclerite does not antique regress and is inward. sent3: the sclerite is a generation if the dibucaine is a Catharanthus and it is a latitude. sent4: if the fact that the dibucaine is not isotonic but it is a hypochlorite is wrong then it is not integumentary. sent5: that the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus is right. sent6: the dibucaine is both not a Catharanthus and a latitude. sent7: the carnotite is a kind of a latitude. sent8: if that the sclerite is a kind of a latitude is not false then that it is a kind of a generation is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus and is a latitude the sclerite is a generation.

if the dibucaine is not a Catharanthus and is a latitude the sclerite is a generation.

the dibucaine is both not a Catharanthus and a latitude.

that something does deceive manana and does ladder Lincolnshire is not true.

sent1: the clipboard ladders Lincolnshire. sent2: the classics does deceive manana. sent3: if the fact that the rubbish does not deceive manana and does not ladder Lincolnshire does not hold the ragsorter ladder Lincolnshire. sent4: the rubbish does deceive manana. sent5: the phycocyanin is a kind of a performer if there is something such that that it is noncrucial or it is imprudent or both does not hold. sent6: the rubbish is a southeast and it is regional. sent7: the tread is autacoidal and is a kind of a inaptitude. sent8: The Lincolnshire ladders rubbish. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not post then that the fact that the internet is noncrucial or imprudent or both is not wrong is not right. sent10: The manana does deceive rubbish. sent11: there is something such that it ladders Lincolnshire. sent12: something is not a kind of a post if it is not a kind of a graphologist. sent13: the rubbish ladders Lincolnshire. sent14: the fact that the rubbish does not deceive manana and does not ladder Lincolnshire is not correct if the phycocyanin is a performer. sent15: there is something such that it does deceive manana. sent16: if something is autacoidal then the spectator is not a graphologist and does not load.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ragsorter ladders Lincolnshire.

{B}{cl}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that something does deceive manana and does ladder Lincolnshire is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the clipboard ladders Lincolnshire. sent2: the classics does deceive manana. sent3: if the fact that the rubbish does not deceive manana and does not ladder Lincolnshire does not hold the ragsorter ladder Lincolnshire. sent4: the rubbish does deceive manana. sent5: the phycocyanin is a kind of a performer if there is something such that that it is noncrucial or it is imprudent or both does not hold. sent6: the rubbish is a southeast and it is regional. sent7: the tread is autacoidal and is a kind of a inaptitude. sent8: The Lincolnshire ladders rubbish. sent9: if there exists something such that it does not post then that the fact that the internet is noncrucial or imprudent or both is not wrong is not right. sent10: The manana does deceive rubbish. sent11: there is something such that it ladders Lincolnshire. sent12: something is not a kind of a post if it is not a kind of a graphologist. sent13: the rubbish ladders Lincolnshire. sent14: the fact that the rubbish does not deceive manana and does not ladder Lincolnshire is not correct if the phycocyanin is a performer. sent15: there is something such that it does deceive manana. sent16: if something is autacoidal then the spectator is not a graphologist and does not load. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the rubbish deceives manana and does ladder Lincolnshire.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rubbish does deceive manana.

the rubbish does deceive manana.

the rubbish ladders Lincolnshire.

there exists something such that if that it is not unhappy or is a kind of a flitch or both does not hold then it is a piaffe.

sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a snuffbox or a cordierite or both is wrong it is a kind of a Nicolson. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it either is not a Llullaillaco or is Albanian or both is wrong then it is over-the-counter. sent3: if that something is unhappy or a flitch or both is not right then it is a piaffe. sent4: if the fact that the sequencer either is a colorist or is a flitch or both is not correct it is unreproducible. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it either is not a Gabor or does antique inapplicability or both is not right it is operable.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬({CP}x v {AS}x) -> {HF}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{IK}x v {AI}x) -> {S}x sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: ¬({GA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {GH}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{DR}x v {DJ}x) -> {CF}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is not unhappy or is a kind of a flitch or both does not hold then it is a piaffe. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a snuffbox or a cordierite or both is wrong it is a kind of a Nicolson. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it either is not a Llullaillaco or is Albanian or both is wrong then it is over-the-counter. sent3: if that something is unhappy or a flitch or both is not right then it is a piaffe. sent4: if the fact that the sequencer either is a colorist or is a flitch or both is not correct it is unreproducible. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it either is not a Gabor or does antique inapplicability or both is not right it is operable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the sequencer either is a colorist or is a flitch or both is not correct it is unreproducible.

if the fact that the sequencer either is a colorist or is a flitch or both is not correct it is unreproducible.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is a snuffbox or a cordierite or both is wrong it is a kind of a Nicolson.

the carting does not occur.

sent1: the biologicalness does not occur. sent2: if the compartmentalization happens then the deceiving clerkship does not occur and the Mesozoic occurs. sent3: if the deceiving clerkship does not occur the abruption does not occur and the cart does not occur. sent4: the nonevent does not occur and the infantilism does not occur. sent5: if the antiquing Toxotidae happens the climb occurs. sent6: the phenotypicalness does not occur and the infantilism does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{ER} sent2: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: ¬{AA} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent4: (¬{BQ} & ¬{ET}) sent5: {GI} -> {DR} sent6: (¬{I} & ¬{ET})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the carting does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the biologicalness does not occur. sent2: if the compartmentalization happens then the deceiving clerkship does not occur and the Mesozoic occurs. sent3: if the deceiving clerkship does not occur the abruption does not occur and the cart does not occur. sent4: the nonevent does not occur and the infantilism does not occur. sent5: if the antiquing Toxotidae happens the climb occurs. sent6: the phenotypicalness does not occur and the infantilism does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the deceiving clerkship does not occur the abruption does not occur and the cart does not occur.

if the deceiving clerkship does not occur the abruption does not occur and the cart does not occur.

the phenotypicalness does not occur and the infantilism does not occur.

the fact that there is something such that it either is marital or deceives Calais or both is not correct.

sent1: if the spectrograph does deceive Calais then the bonsai is marital. sent2: the fact that something does deceive Calais and is unidimensional is wrong if it is not marital. sent3: either the spectrograph is marital or it is unidimensional or both. sent4: the spectrograph does deceive Calais if the bonsai is unidimensional. sent5: the spectrograph does deceive Calais and/or is not non-unidimensional. sent6: the bonsai is unidimensional. sent7: that the spectrograph is unidimensional is correct if the bonsai is marital.

¬((Ex): ({C}x v {B}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the orthoptist is hexangular and/or is a anther.

({DA}{fi} v {BI}{fi})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it either is marital or deceives Calais or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spectrograph does deceive Calais then the bonsai is marital. sent2: the fact that something does deceive Calais and is unidimensional is wrong if it is not marital. sent3: either the spectrograph is marital or it is unidimensional or both. sent4: the spectrograph does deceive Calais if the bonsai is unidimensional. sent5: the spectrograph does deceive Calais and/or is not non-unidimensional. sent6: the bonsai is unidimensional. sent7: that the spectrograph is unidimensional is correct if the bonsai is marital. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the spectrograph deceives Calais.; int1 -> int2: the spectrograph is marital or does deceive Calais or both.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the spectrograph does deceive Calais if the bonsai is unidimensional.

the spectrograph does deceive Calais if the bonsai is unidimensional.

the bonsai is unidimensional.

that the grizzly is a bole is not false.

sent1: the grizzly is a challis if there exists something such that it is not an inventor and/or is adynamic. sent2: the grizzly does antique coccus. sent3: the coccus does deceive grizzly if either something is not unicellular or it does antique sodium or both. sent4: the coccus is pupillary. sent5: the grizzly does rekindle. sent6: the gasmask is hyperbolic. sent7: the fact that the grizzly does not deceive grizzly is not true if there exists something such that that it is a bole is right. sent8: there is something such that that either it is a kind of a bole or it deceives grizzly or both is not false. sent9: the coccus is a kind of a bole if something does deceive grizzly. sent10: if there is something such that it is not non-unicellular then the coccus is full-term. sent11: something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both. sent12: there is something such that either it is not a bole or it does deceive grizzly or both. sent13: something either is a signage or is a kind of a Finnish or both. sent14: if the coccus deceives grizzly then that the grizzly is a bole is not wrong. sent15: if either something is not a bole or it does deceive gasmask or both then the gasmask chats pond. sent16: the coccus is a bole. sent17: if the coccus is a bole then the grizzly does deceive grizzly. sent18: the grizzly deceives grizzly. sent19: the fact that there exists something such that it is a coroner and/or it is a whiting is not false. sent20: if that something is either not Finnish or a stir or both is true then that the pond is unicellular is not wrong. sent21: something does not deceive grizzly or it is a bole or both. sent22: either something deceives grizzly or it is a bole or both.

{B}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{IN}x v {GN}x) -> {AJ}{b} sent2: {GQ}{b} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: {DL}{a} sent5: {DA}{b} sent6: {DF}{ee} sent7: (x): {B}x -> {A}{b} sent8: (Ex): ({B}x v {A}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent10: (x): {AA}x -> {GE}{a} sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): (¬{B}x v {A}x) sent13: (Ex): ({ED}x v {AT}x) sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (x): (¬{B}x v {BK}x) -> {GO}{ee} sent16: {B}{a} sent17: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent18: {A}{b} sent19: (Ex): ({CF}x v {FQ}x) sent20: (x): (¬{AT}x v {HD}x) -> {AA}{fn} sent21: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {B}x) sent22: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the grizzly is a bole is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the grizzly is a challis if there exists something such that it is not an inventor and/or is adynamic. sent2: the grizzly does antique coccus. sent3: the coccus does deceive grizzly if either something is not unicellular or it does antique sodium or both. sent4: the coccus is pupillary. sent5: the grizzly does rekindle. sent6: the gasmask is hyperbolic. sent7: the fact that the grizzly does not deceive grizzly is not true if there exists something such that that it is a bole is right. sent8: there is something such that that either it is a kind of a bole or it deceives grizzly or both is not false. sent9: the coccus is a kind of a bole if something does deceive grizzly. sent10: if there is something such that it is not non-unicellular then the coccus is full-term. sent11: something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both. sent12: there is something such that either it is not a bole or it does deceive grizzly or both. sent13: something either is a signage or is a kind of a Finnish or both. sent14: if the coccus deceives grizzly then that the grizzly is a bole is not wrong. sent15: if either something is not a bole or it does deceive gasmask or both then the gasmask chats pond. sent16: the coccus is a bole. sent17: if the coccus is a bole then the grizzly does deceive grizzly. sent18: the grizzly deceives grizzly. sent19: the fact that there exists something such that it is a coroner and/or it is a whiting is not false. sent20: if that something is either not Finnish or a stir or both is true then that the pond is unicellular is not wrong. sent21: something does not deceive grizzly or it is a bole or both. sent22: either something deceives grizzly or it is a bole or both. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the coccus deceives grizzly.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both.

Something is not unicellular.

the coccus does deceive grizzly if either something is not unicellular or it does antique sodium or both.

that the grizzly is a bole is not false.

sent1: the grizzly is a challis if there exists something such that it is not an inventor and/or is adynamic. sent2: the grizzly does antique coccus. sent3: the coccus does deceive grizzly if either something is not unicellular or it does antique sodium or both. sent4: the coccus is pupillary. sent5: the grizzly does rekindle. sent6: the gasmask is hyperbolic. sent7: the fact that the grizzly does not deceive grizzly is not true if there exists something such that that it is a bole is right. sent8: there is something such that that either it is a kind of a bole or it deceives grizzly or both is not false. sent9: the coccus is a kind of a bole if something does deceive grizzly. sent10: if there is something such that it is not non-unicellular then the coccus is full-term. sent11: something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both. sent12: there is something such that either it is not a bole or it does deceive grizzly or both. sent13: something either is a signage or is a kind of a Finnish or both. sent14: if the coccus deceives grizzly then that the grizzly is a bole is not wrong. sent15: if either something is not a bole or it does deceive gasmask or both then the gasmask chats pond. sent16: the coccus is a bole. sent17: if the coccus is a bole then the grizzly does deceive grizzly. sent18: the grizzly deceives grizzly. sent19: the fact that there exists something such that it is a coroner and/or it is a whiting is not false. sent20: if that something is either not Finnish or a stir or both is true then that the pond is unicellular is not wrong. sent21: something does not deceive grizzly or it is a bole or both. sent22: either something deceives grizzly or it is a bole or both.

{B}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{IN}x v {GN}x) -> {AJ}{b} sent2: {GQ}{b} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: {DL}{a} sent5: {DA}{b} sent6: {DF}{ee} sent7: (x): {B}x -> {A}{b} sent8: (Ex): ({B}x v {A}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent10: (x): {AA}x -> {GE}{a} sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): (¬{B}x v {A}x) sent13: (Ex): ({ED}x v {AT}x) sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: (x): (¬{B}x v {BK}x) -> {GO}{ee} sent16: {B}{a} sent17: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent18: {A}{b} sent19: (Ex): ({CF}x v {FQ}x) sent20: (x): (¬{AT}x v {HD}x) -> {AA}{fn} sent21: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {B}x) sent22: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the grizzly is a bole is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the grizzly is a challis if there exists something such that it is not an inventor and/or is adynamic. sent2: the grizzly does antique coccus. sent3: the coccus does deceive grizzly if either something is not unicellular or it does antique sodium or both. sent4: the coccus is pupillary. sent5: the grizzly does rekindle. sent6: the gasmask is hyperbolic. sent7: the fact that the grizzly does not deceive grizzly is not true if there exists something such that that it is a bole is right. sent8: there is something such that that either it is a kind of a bole or it deceives grizzly or both is not false. sent9: the coccus is a kind of a bole if something does deceive grizzly. sent10: if there is something such that it is not non-unicellular then the coccus is full-term. sent11: something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both. sent12: there is something such that either it is not a bole or it does deceive grizzly or both. sent13: something either is a signage or is a kind of a Finnish or both. sent14: if the coccus deceives grizzly then that the grizzly is a bole is not wrong. sent15: if either something is not a bole or it does deceive gasmask or both then the gasmask chats pond. sent16: the coccus is a bole. sent17: if the coccus is a bole then the grizzly does deceive grizzly. sent18: the grizzly deceives grizzly. sent19: the fact that there exists something such that it is a coroner and/or it is a whiting is not false. sent20: if that something is either not Finnish or a stir or both is true then that the pond is unicellular is not wrong. sent21: something does not deceive grizzly or it is a bole or both. sent22: either something deceives grizzly or it is a bole or both. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> int1: the coccus deceives grizzly.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not unicellular or does antique sodium or both.

Antique sodium or something is not unicellular.

if the coccus deceives grizzly then that the grizzly is a bole is not wrong.

the chase is a kind of a gram.

sent1: something is not a gram if it is not upland or it does converge or both. sent2: that if that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage does not hold then the chase is a gram is right. sent3: the fact that the glucosamine does converge and antiques linkage is false if it is not a kind of a gram. sent4: the fact that the chase does antique linkage is not incorrect if the glucosamine is a kind of a gram. sent5: that something is non-bovine thing that deceives Lincolnshire is true if it is a virus. sent6: the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it does antique linkage is false if there exists something such that it is upland. sent7: there is something such that it is upland. sent8: if the fact that the glucosamine does not guide and/or it is not paniculate is not correct then it is a virus. sent9: something is non-upland and/or it converges if it does not antique linkage.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the linkage antiques weightlift.

{FC}{au}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chase is a kind of a gram. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a gram if it is not upland or it does converge or both. sent2: that if that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage does not hold then the chase is a gram is right. sent3: the fact that the glucosamine does converge and antiques linkage is false if it is not a kind of a gram. sent4: the fact that the chase does antique linkage is not incorrect if the glucosamine is a kind of a gram. sent5: that something is non-bovine thing that deceives Lincolnshire is true if it is a virus. sent6: the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it does antique linkage is false if there exists something such that it is upland. sent7: there is something such that it is upland. sent8: if the fact that the glucosamine does not guide and/or it is not paniculate is not correct then it is a virus. sent9: something is non-upland and/or it converges if it does not antique linkage. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage is not correct is true.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is upland.

There is something that is upland.

the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it does antique linkage is false if there exists something such that it is upland.

the chase is a kind of a gram.

sent1: something is not a gram if it is not upland or it does converge or both. sent2: that if that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage does not hold then the chase is a gram is right. sent3: the fact that the glucosamine does converge and antiques linkage is false if it is not a kind of a gram. sent4: the fact that the chase does antique linkage is not incorrect if the glucosamine is a kind of a gram. sent5: that something is non-bovine thing that deceives Lincolnshire is true if it is a virus. sent6: the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it does antique linkage is false if there exists something such that it is upland. sent7: there is something such that it is upland. sent8: if the fact that the glucosamine does not guide and/or it is not paniculate is not correct then it is a virus. sent9: something is non-upland and/or it converges if it does not antique linkage.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the linkage antiques weightlift.

{FC}{au}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chase is a kind of a gram. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a gram if it is not upland or it does converge or both. sent2: that if that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage does not hold then the chase is a gram is right. sent3: the fact that the glucosamine does converge and antiques linkage is false if it is not a kind of a gram. sent4: the fact that the chase does antique linkage is not incorrect if the glucosamine is a kind of a gram. sent5: that something is non-bovine thing that deceives Lincolnshire is true if it is a virus. sent6: the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it does antique linkage is false if there exists something such that it is upland. sent7: there is something such that it is upland. sent8: if the fact that the glucosamine does not guide and/or it is not paniculate is not correct then it is a virus. sent9: something is non-upland and/or it converges if it does not antique linkage. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the fact that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage is not correct is true.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is upland.

It is upland.

that if that the glucosamine does not converge but it antiques linkage does not hold then the chase is a gram is right.

the illicitness does not occur.

sent1: that the pharmaceuticalness and the deductiveness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the eremiticness does not occur is right both the laddering publican and the fine-tuning happens. sent3: the Maundy does not occur if the laddering Manichaean does not occur. sent4: that the deceiving larid does not occur is prevented by that the reinforcement occurs. sent5: if that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct the laddering finisher occurs. sent6: the path does not occur. sent7: if the Maundy does not occur the eremiticness but not the noncommercialness happens. sent8: if the antiquing single does not occur the laddering finisher happens. sent9: that the eremiticness happens is incorrect if that the noncommercialness does not occur and the Maundy does not occur is false. sent10: the reinforcement happens and the looting does not occur if the postexilicness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the fine-tuning and the postexilicness occurs is not correct if the laddering publican does not occur. sent12: if the eremiticness happens the laddering publican does not occur. sent13: the antiquing necklet does not occur and the reinforcement does not occur if the looting does not occur. sent14: the deceiving larid does not occur. sent15: if that the fine-tuning happens is not false the postexilicness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the distribution does not occur and the Leibnizianness happens is not correct if the laddering Walloons happens. sent17: the fact that the illicitness does not occur is correct if the laddering Walloons does not occur but the laddering finisher occurs. sent18: that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct. sent19: if the fact that the laddering Walloons does not occur and the antiquing necklet does not occur does not hold then the laddering Walloons happens. sent20: the cirrostratus does not occur but the laddering sou'wester occurs. sent21: the fact that the fact that the laddering Walloons does not occur and the antiquing necklet does not occur is incorrect if the deceiving larid occurs is right. sent22: if the laddering Walloons occurs the fact that the laddering finisher does not occur and the illicitness does not occur is not right. sent23: the looting does not occur if that the fine-tuning and the postexilicness occurs does not hold.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬({IB} & {BF}) sent2: ¬{K} -> ({J} & {I}) sent3: ¬{N} -> ¬{M} sent4: {F} -> {D} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬{EJ} sent7: ¬{M} -> ({K} & ¬{L}) sent8: ¬{AB} -> {B} sent9: ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent11: ¬{J} -> ¬({I} & {H}) sent12: {K} -> ¬{J} sent13: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{D} sent15: {I} -> ¬{H} sent16: {A} -> ¬(¬{GR} & {ES}) sent17: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent18: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent19: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{E}) -> {A} sent20: (¬{HQ} & {JK}) sent21: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{E}) sent22: {A} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent23: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that not the distribution but the Leibnizianness happens is not right.

¬(¬{GR} & {ES})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the illicitness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pharmaceuticalness and the deductiveness occurs is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the eremiticness does not occur is right both the laddering publican and the fine-tuning happens. sent3: the Maundy does not occur if the laddering Manichaean does not occur. sent4: that the deceiving larid does not occur is prevented by that the reinforcement occurs. sent5: if that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct the laddering finisher occurs. sent6: the path does not occur. sent7: if the Maundy does not occur the eremiticness but not the noncommercialness happens. sent8: if the antiquing single does not occur the laddering finisher happens. sent9: that the eremiticness happens is incorrect if that the noncommercialness does not occur and the Maundy does not occur is false. sent10: the reinforcement happens and the looting does not occur if the postexilicness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the fine-tuning and the postexilicness occurs is not correct if the laddering publican does not occur. sent12: if the eremiticness happens the laddering publican does not occur. sent13: the antiquing necklet does not occur and the reinforcement does not occur if the looting does not occur. sent14: the deceiving larid does not occur. sent15: if that the fine-tuning happens is not false the postexilicness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the distribution does not occur and the Leibnizianness happens is not correct if the laddering Walloons happens. sent17: the fact that the illicitness does not occur is correct if the laddering Walloons does not occur but the laddering finisher occurs. sent18: that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct. sent19: if the fact that the laddering Walloons does not occur and the antiquing necklet does not occur does not hold then the laddering Walloons happens. sent20: the cirrostratus does not occur but the laddering sou'wester occurs. sent21: the fact that the fact that the laddering Walloons does not occur and the antiquing necklet does not occur is incorrect if the deceiving larid occurs is right. sent22: if the laddering Walloons occurs the fact that the laddering finisher does not occur and the illicitness does not occur is not right. sent23: the looting does not occur if that the fine-tuning and the postexilicness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct the laddering finisher occurs.

if that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct the laddering finisher occurs.

that the chatting Gaea does not occur but the antiquing single happens is not correct.

the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct.

sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and does deceive divi-divi is not right.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the Vernier expostulates but it is not a predicator does not hold then it deceives Leptarrhena.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena.; sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the Vernier does deceive divi-divi.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect.

The fact that it does expostulate and is not a predicator is incorrect.

the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false.

the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct.

sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and does deceive divi-divi is not right.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the Vernier expostulates but it is not a predicator does not hold then it deceives Leptarrhena.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena.; sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the Vernier does deceive divi-divi.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect.

The fact that it is not a predicator is incorrect.

if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi.

the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct.

sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and does deceive divi-divi is not right.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena and it does deceive divi-divi is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the photography is intestate it does not deceive dentition and is near. sent2: if something is a predicator it does deceive Leptarrhena. sent3: if the Vernier is a kind of a hawk's-beard then it deceives divi-divi. sent4: something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect. sent5: that that something does deceive divi-divi and is a hawk's-beard is not false does not hold if it is not an impression. sent6: the Vernier is a hawk's-beard. sent7: if the Vernier is a predicator then it deceives Leptarrhena. sent8: the photography is not a kind of an impression if it does not deceive dentition and it is near. sent9: that the Vernier expostulates and it is a predicator is incorrect. sent10: the fact that the Vernier expostulates and is not a predicator is false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the Vernier expostulates but it is not a predicator does not hold then it deceives Leptarrhena.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the Vernier does deceive Leptarrhena.; sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the Vernier does deceive divi-divi.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something deceives Leptarrhena if the fact that it does expostulate and it is not a predicator is incorrect.

It is not a predicator if something does expostulate and is not a predicator.

the Vernier is a hawk's-beard.

the sailing-race happens.

sent1: both the cormousness and the oblation occurs. sent2: if the chorionicness happens then the mercurialness occurs. sent3: if the oblation does not occur then the stick occurs and the cormousness happens. sent4: that the sailing-race does not occur and the cormousness does not occur is triggered by that the oblation does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the cormousness occurs hold then the sailing-race happens. sent6: the oblation does not occur if the fact that the submissiveness occurs and/or the oblation does not occur is right. sent7: the oblation happens. sent8: the generousness happens if the grassfire occurs. sent9: if the rhapsodizing does not occur the fact that the submissiveness and the sailing-race happens does not hold. sent10: the explicableness happens.

{C}

sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: {HU} -> {DG} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({CC} & {A}) sent4: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: ({D} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{B} sent7: {B} sent8: {U} -> {EA} sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent10: {JC}

PROVED

PROVED

the sticking occurs.

{CC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sailing-race happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the cormousness and the oblation occurs. sent2: if the chorionicness happens then the mercurialness occurs. sent3: if the oblation does not occur then the stick occurs and the cormousness happens. sent4: that the sailing-race does not occur and the cormousness does not occur is triggered by that the oblation does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the cormousness occurs hold then the sailing-race happens. sent6: the oblation does not occur if the fact that the submissiveness occurs and/or the oblation does not occur is right. sent7: the oblation happens. sent8: the generousness happens if the grassfire occurs. sent9: if the rhapsodizing does not occur the fact that the submissiveness and the sailing-race happens does not hold. sent10: the explicableness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the cormousness occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the cormousness and the oblation occurs.

both the cormousness and the oblation occurs.

if the fact that the cormousness occurs hold then the sailing-race happens.

the washing does not occur.

sent1: if the recusancy does not occur that the non-neolithicness and the washing occurs is false. sent2: the wash happens if that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is not right. sent3: if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false. sent4: the neolithicness occurs.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the washing does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the washing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the recusancy does not occur that the non-neolithicness and the washing occurs is false. sent2: the wash happens if that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is not right. sent3: if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false. sent4: the neolithicness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false.

The fact that the unregretfulness does not occur is false if the neolithicness occurs.

the neolithicness occurs.

the washing does not occur.

sent1: if the recusancy does not occur that the non-neolithicness and the washing occurs is false. sent2: the wash happens if that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is not right. sent3: if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false. sent4: the neolithicness occurs.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the washing does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the washing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the recusancy does not occur that the non-neolithicness and the washing occurs is false. sent2: the wash happens if that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is not right. sent3: if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false. sent4: the neolithicness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the neolithicness occurs then the fact that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is false.

The unregretfulness does not occur if the neolithicness occurs.

the wash happens if that the unregretfulness does not occur and the chemiluminescence does not occur is not right.

that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct.

sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the scalper deceives half-length and is a pompon does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is not true.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the fact that the scalper does deceive half-length is right.; sent12 & sent18 -> int3: the scalper is a kind of a pompon.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

If the psittacosaur is not a contributor, the fact that the nudist antiques alphaviruses and is not an ornamentation is incorrect.

the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct.

sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the scalper deceives half-length and is a pompon does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is not true.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the fact that the scalper does deceive half-length is right.; sent12 & sent18 -> int3: the scalper is a kind of a pompon.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

If the psittacosaur is not a contributor, then the fact that the nudist antiques alphaviruses and is not an ornamentation is incorrect.

the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true.

that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct.

sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the scalper deceives half-length and is a pompon does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is not true.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the fact that the scalper does deceive half-length is right.; sent12 & sent18 -> int3: the scalper is a kind of a pompon.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

If the psittacosaur is not a contributor, the fact that the nudist antiques alphaviruses is not an ornamentation is incorrect.

the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold.

that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct.

sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the scalper deceives half-length and is a pompon does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scalper deceives half-length and it is a pompon is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that if something is postdiluvian then the fact that it is not acneiform and is a contributor is incorrect hold. sent2: the scalper is a filovirus and it ladders formalwear. sent3: something is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform. sent4: that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent5: that something does deceive half-length and is a pompon is incorrect if it is not a contributor. sent6: that the psittacosaur is an ornamentation and is not a contributor is incorrect if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent7: the fact that the scalper is an ornamentation but it is not a pompon is not true if the nudist does not antique alphavirus. sent8: the psittacosaur is a kind of a pompon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and it is acneiform does not hold. sent10: if the fact that something is both not acneiform and a contributor is not right then that it is not a contributor is not false. sent11: that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is an ornamentation is not correct if the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent12: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it is not a kind of a postdiluvian and it is not acneiform is not wrong does not hold hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is a postdiluvian that is not acneiform is not right. sent14: there exists something such that that it is not a pompon and does not deceive half-length is false. sent15: if that the nudist is an ornamentation is not false then the scalper deceives half-length. sent16: that the nudist antiques alphavirus and it is an ornamentation does not hold. sent17: the scalper is a pompon if there exists something such that it is acneiform. sent18: the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true. sent19: the psittacosaur is not a contributor. sent20: the lepidopteron is a amphibolite and it is a contributor. sent21: the scalper deceives half-length if that the nudist antiques alphavirus but it is not a kind of an ornamentation is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> int1: the fact that the nudist does antique alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is not true.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the fact that the scalper does deceive half-length is right.; sent12 & sent18 -> int3: the scalper is a kind of a pompon.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that the nudist antiques alphavirus and is not an ornamentation is true is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

The fact that the nudist antiques alphaviruses and is not ornamentation is incorrect if the psittacosaur is not a contributor.

the scalper is a kind of a pompon if there is something such that the fact that it is not postdiluvian and not acneiform is not true.

the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish.

sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal.

(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the clack is not a ungulate but it is an anguish is false.

¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish. ; $context$ = sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the journal antiques souring.; sent7 -> int2: if the journal does antique souring it is not a plumb.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the journal is not a plumb.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both.

If it is not a headship or nice, the journal antiques are souring.

the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both.

the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish.

sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal.

(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the clack is not a ungulate but it is an anguish is false.

¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish. ; $context$ = sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the journal antiques souring.; sent7 -> int2: if the journal does antique souring it is not a plumb.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the journal is not a plumb.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both.

If it is not a headship, the journal antiques are souring.

something that antiques souring is not a plumb.

the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish.

sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal.

(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the clack is not a ungulate but it is an anguish is false.

¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clack is non-ungulate and an anguish. ; $context$ = sent1: the journal is not an anguish but nice if the clack is not a headship. sent2: the journal is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent3: that the wireworm is a plumb and is an anguish is not correct if it does not antique souring. sent4: if the rope is not nice then it is not equitable. sent5: the clack is not nice and/or it is a ungulate. sent6: the journal is not a kind of a ungulate. sent7: something that antiques souring is not a plumb. sent8: the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold. sent9: the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both. sent10: the journal is not mercurial. sent11: the journal is not acapnic but it is a horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the journal antiques souring.; sent7 -> int2: if the journal does antique souring it is not a plumb.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the journal is not a plumb.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the journal antiques souring if either it is not a headship or it is nice or both.

If it's not a headship or nice, the journal antiques are souring.

the clack is not a ungulate but an anguish if the fact that the journal is not a kind of a plumb hold.

the overlook does not ladder guaiac.

sent1: something ladders guaiac if it is either surgical or not a Monomorium or both. sent2: the cassareep is surgical. sent3: if either something is epiphyseal or it is not contrasty or both then it is no-go. sent4: the overlook is surgical but it is not a kind of a Myrsine. sent5: if something is a Myrsine and/or is not a Monomorium then that it ladders guaiac is not false. sent6: either the overlook is a kind of a Myrsine or it is not impolitic or both. sent7: something does ladder guaiac and/or is not non-universalistic if it is not sulphuric. sent8: the footage is a Myrsine. sent9: something that either ladders guaiac or is not a kind of a Myrsine or both is a Monomorium. sent10: the overlook is a Monomorium. sent11: something is a kind of a Monomorium if it is a Myrsine and/or it does not ladder guaiac. sent12: the rummy is nonsurgical if something that is a Monomorium is a kind of a Myrsine.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ({A}x v ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent2: {A}{b} sent3: (x): ({AQ}x v ¬{GD}x) -> {EF}x sent4: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: (x): ({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent6: ({B}{a} v ¬{CL}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x v {E}x) sent8: {B}{eb} sent9: (x): ({D}x v ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent10: {C}{a} sent11: (x): ({B}x v ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent12: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{dn}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the rummy is no-go and/or not faecal.

({EF}{dn} v ¬{BD}{dn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overlook does not ladder guaiac. ; $context$ = sent1: something ladders guaiac if it is either surgical or not a Monomorium or both. sent2: the cassareep is surgical. sent3: if either something is epiphyseal or it is not contrasty or both then it is no-go. sent4: the overlook is surgical but it is not a kind of a Myrsine. sent5: if something is a Myrsine and/or is not a Monomorium then that it ladders guaiac is not false. sent6: either the overlook is a kind of a Myrsine or it is not impolitic or both. sent7: something does ladder guaiac and/or is not non-universalistic if it is not sulphuric. sent8: the footage is a Myrsine. sent9: something that either ladders guaiac or is not a kind of a Myrsine or both is a Monomorium. sent10: the overlook is a Monomorium. sent11: something is a kind of a Monomorium if it is a Myrsine and/or it does not ladder guaiac. sent12: the rummy is nonsurgical if something that is a Monomorium is a kind of a Myrsine. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the overlook is surgical.; int1 -> int2: the overlook is surgical and/or is not a Monomorium.; sent1 -> int3: if either the overlook is surgical or it is not a Monomorium or both then it ladders guaiac.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the overlook is surgical but it is not a kind of a Myrsine.

the overlook is surgical but it is not a kind of a Myrsine.

something ladders guaiac if it is either surgical or not a Monomorium or both.

the conidium is not a twin.

sent1: the fact that the Lincoln is a kind of a twin hold. sent2: that the backsword is a kind of a half-length hold. sent3: if the focus is carpellate then the publican ladders focus. sent4: the plebeian is a kind of a troika. sent5: the conidium is a kind of a twin if it is a shower and it is not a kind of a quantization. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piedmont and it is not a kind of a scallop does not hold then the focus is a congener. sent7: the conidium does not shower and it is not a quantization. sent8: something is not a twin if that it is not unpunctual and it is a kind of a twin is false. sent9: the spirit is non-masculine thing that does not antique advance. sent10: if there is something such that it does not deceive backsword the conidium is not a shower and not a chalazion. sent11: the conidium twins if it does not shower and it is not a kind of a quantization. sent12: if something is a congener then it is carpellate. sent13: the conidium does not shower and it is not a troika. sent14: the backsword is a keratoconus. sent15: that the conidium is both not unpunctual and a twin is not right if the publican deceives backsword. sent16: something does not deceive backsword if that it is unpunctual thing that is not a twin is not false. sent17: the conidium does not shower. sent18: if the backsword is a half-length and is a keratoconus then it does not deceive Lincoln. sent19: that something is not a kind of a piedmont and does not scallop is not true if the fact that it does not deceive Lincoln is not wrong. sent20: if something does ladder focus it is unpunctual and not a twin.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the conidium is not a kind of a shower and is not a chalazion.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AD}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the conidium is not a twin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Lincoln is a kind of a twin hold. sent2: that the backsword is a kind of a half-length hold. sent3: if the focus is carpellate then the publican ladders focus. sent4: the plebeian is a kind of a troika. sent5: the conidium is a kind of a twin if it is a shower and it is not a kind of a quantization. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a piedmont and it is not a kind of a scallop does not hold then the focus is a congener. sent7: the conidium does not shower and it is not a quantization. sent8: something is not a twin if that it is not unpunctual and it is a kind of a twin is false. sent9: the spirit is non-masculine thing that does not antique advance. sent10: if there is something such that it does not deceive backsword the conidium is not a shower and not a chalazion. sent11: the conidium twins if it does not shower and it is not a kind of a quantization. sent12: if something is a congener then it is carpellate. sent13: the conidium does not shower and it is not a troika. sent14: the backsword is a keratoconus. sent15: that the conidium is both not unpunctual and a twin is not right if the publican deceives backsword. sent16: something does not deceive backsword if that it is unpunctual thing that is not a twin is not false. sent17: the conidium does not shower. sent18: if the backsword is a half-length and is a keratoconus then it does not deceive Lincoln. sent19: that something is not a kind of a piedmont and does not scallop is not true if the fact that it does not deceive Lincoln is not wrong. sent20: if something does ladder focus it is unpunctual and not a twin. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the conidium twins if it does not shower and it is not a kind of a quantization.

the conidium twins if it does not shower and it is not a kind of a quantization.

the conidium does not shower and it is not a quantization.

that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct.

sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and does antique pneumatophore.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or not a oxytetracycline.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the bread-bin is not a kind of a cragged is true.; sent5 -> int3: that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if the fact that it is not a cragged is not false.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity.

If the cologne is a vicinity, the bread-bin is a gambrel.

the cologne is a vicinity.

that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct.

sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and does antique pneumatophore.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or not a oxytetracycline.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the bread-bin is not a kind of a cragged is true.; sent5 -> int3: that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if the fact that it is not a cragged is not false.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity.

If the cologne is a vicinity, the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline.

if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged.

that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct.

sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and does antique pneumatophore.

(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not deceive cagoule but it does antique pneumatophore if it is not a vicinity. sent2: the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity. sent3: that the fact that the cologne deceives cagoule and protuberates is not incorrect is incorrect. sent4: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or it is a oxytetracycline. sent5: the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged. sent6: if something does not deceive cagoule then that it does not antique pneumatophore and is a gambrel is false. sent7: the cologne is a vicinity. sent8: if either the bread-bin is a gambrel or it is not a kind of a oxytetracycline or both it is not a kind of a cragged. sent9: the bread-bin is not a cragged if it is not a oxytetracycline. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the bread-bin is a gambrel and/or not a oxytetracycline.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the bread-bin is not a kind of a cragged is true.; sent5 -> int3: that the bread-bin does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if the fact that it is not a cragged is not false.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bread-bin is a gambrel or not a oxytetracycline or both if the cologne is a vicinity.

If the cologne is a vicinity, the bread-bin is either a gambrel or oxytetracycline.

the fact that something does not deceive cagoule and antiques pneumatophore is false if it is not a cragged.

the dewlap antiques trace.

sent1: the buckram is expansionist and it deceives aliyah. sent2: the greasewood is a kind of a racket. sent3: something is a kind of non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic if it is a kind of a hedonism. sent4: there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent5: that the dewlap is not an impression is true if there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent6: if the dewlap does racket it is an impression. sent7: something antiques Jeffersonian if it is agrologic. sent8: the chainsaw deceives greasewood if the fact that it does deceive buckram is true. sent9: the dewlap deceives Serra. sent10: the dewlap is fewer. sent11: if the plaque is an impression that does antique trace then the dewlap does not antique trace. sent12: the calcium-cyanamide does not antique trace. sent13: if there is something such that it is expansionist and it deceives aliyah the wardroom is a hedonism. sent14: the plaque is a kind of an impression if the greasewood is an impression. sent15: the linkage antiques Jeffersonian and/or is stenographic if there is something such that the fact that it does antiques Jeffersonian is not incorrect. sent16: the dewlap is a racket but it does not antique trace if the plaque is an impression. sent17: if the wardroom is non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic the celebrity is agrologic.

{C}{a}

sent1: ({I}{g} & {J}{g}) sent2: {A}{c} sent3: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent4: (Ex): {D}x sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent8: {GC}{jd} -> {IT}{jd} sent9: {BU}{a} sent10: {CR}{a} sent11: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: ¬{C}{ak} sent13: (x): ({I}x & {J}x) -> {G}{f} sent14: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent15: (x): {E}x -> ({E}{d} v {D}{d}) sent16: {B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent17: (¬{F}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> {F}{e}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dewlap does not antique trace.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dewlap antiques trace. ; $context$ = sent1: the buckram is expansionist and it deceives aliyah. sent2: the greasewood is a kind of a racket. sent3: something is a kind of non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic if it is a kind of a hedonism. sent4: there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent5: that the dewlap is not an impression is true if there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent6: if the dewlap does racket it is an impression. sent7: something antiques Jeffersonian if it is agrologic. sent8: the chainsaw deceives greasewood if the fact that it does deceive buckram is true. sent9: the dewlap deceives Serra. sent10: the dewlap is fewer. sent11: if the plaque is an impression that does antique trace then the dewlap does not antique trace. sent12: the calcium-cyanamide does not antique trace. sent13: if there is something such that it is expansionist and it deceives aliyah the wardroom is a hedonism. sent14: the plaque is a kind of an impression if the greasewood is an impression. sent15: the linkage antiques Jeffersonian and/or is stenographic if there is something such that the fact that it does antiques Jeffersonian is not incorrect. sent16: the dewlap is a racket but it does not antique trace if the plaque is an impression. sent17: if the wardroom is non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic the celebrity is agrologic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the dewlap does racket it is an impression.

It is an impression if the dewlap does racket.

there exists something such that it is stenographic.

the dewlap antiques trace.

sent1: the buckram is expansionist and it deceives aliyah. sent2: the greasewood is a kind of a racket. sent3: something is a kind of non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic if it is a kind of a hedonism. sent4: there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent5: that the dewlap is not an impression is true if there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent6: if the dewlap does racket it is an impression. sent7: something antiques Jeffersonian if it is agrologic. sent8: the chainsaw deceives greasewood if the fact that it does deceive buckram is true. sent9: the dewlap deceives Serra. sent10: the dewlap is fewer. sent11: if the plaque is an impression that does antique trace then the dewlap does not antique trace. sent12: the calcium-cyanamide does not antique trace. sent13: if there is something such that it is expansionist and it deceives aliyah the wardroom is a hedonism. sent14: the plaque is a kind of an impression if the greasewood is an impression. sent15: the linkage antiques Jeffersonian and/or is stenographic if there is something such that the fact that it does antiques Jeffersonian is not incorrect. sent16: the dewlap is a racket but it does not antique trace if the plaque is an impression. sent17: if the wardroom is non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic the celebrity is agrologic.

{C}{a}

sent1: ({I}{g} & {J}{g}) sent2: {A}{c} sent3: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent4: (Ex): {D}x sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent8: {GC}{jd} -> {IT}{jd} sent9: {BU}{a} sent10: {CR}{a} sent11: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: ¬{C}{ak} sent13: (x): ({I}x & {J}x) -> {G}{f} sent14: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent15: (x): {E}x -> ({E}{d} v {D}{d}) sent16: {B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent17: (¬{F}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> {F}{e}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dewlap does not antique trace.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dewlap antiques trace. ; $context$ = sent1: the buckram is expansionist and it deceives aliyah. sent2: the greasewood is a kind of a racket. sent3: something is a kind of non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic if it is a kind of a hedonism. sent4: there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent5: that the dewlap is not an impression is true if there exists something such that it is stenographic. sent6: if the dewlap does racket it is an impression. sent7: something antiques Jeffersonian if it is agrologic. sent8: the chainsaw deceives greasewood if the fact that it does deceive buckram is true. sent9: the dewlap deceives Serra. sent10: the dewlap is fewer. sent11: if the plaque is an impression that does antique trace then the dewlap does not antique trace. sent12: the calcium-cyanamide does not antique trace. sent13: if there is something such that it is expansionist and it deceives aliyah the wardroom is a hedonism. sent14: the plaque is a kind of an impression if the greasewood is an impression. sent15: the linkage antiques Jeffersonian and/or is stenographic if there is something such that the fact that it does antiques Jeffersonian is not incorrect. sent16: the dewlap is a racket but it does not antique trace if the plaque is an impression. sent17: if the wardroom is non-agrologic thing that is not anthropogenetic the celebrity is agrologic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the dewlap does racket it is an impression.

The impression is that the dewlap does racket.

that the dewlap is not an impression is true if there exists something such that it is stenographic.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is seamanlike is incorrect then it is not a Moorish and/or it does antique dregs.

sent1: something that is not seamanlike either is a kind of a Moorish or antiques dregs or both. sent2: something that does not ladder Humulin is not adrenocortical or a viscera or both. sent3: the bast is a Moorish or it antiques dregs or both if it is not seamanlike. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not mesenteric it is a chute and/or it does respect. sent5: if something does incur it is not a racker and/or it is dynastic. sent6: if the bast is seamanlike then either it is not Moorish or it does antique dregs or both. sent7: if the dregs is not sepulchral then it is not longitudinal or it is Moorish or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a respected then it is quadrupedal or does ladder Xylomelum or both. sent9: that there exists something such that if it is seamanlike then either it is non-Moorish or it antiques dregs or both is not false. sent10: something is not dynastic and/or it is a chute if it is a kind of a Lancelot. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a burgrave then it is not a shirtlifter or it does deceive banging or both. sent12: either something is not imitative or it does deceive banging or both if it is not a slavery. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a burgrave then it either ladders outrage or ladders Xylomelum or both.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{GT}x -> (¬{IG}x v {JH}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{HF}x -> ({FR}x v {EM}x) sent5: (x): {IL}x -> (¬{IR}x v {CN}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{DB}{cf} -> (¬{F}{cf} v {AA}{cf}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> ({FT}x v {E}x) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent10: (x): {ID}x -> (¬{CN}x v {FR}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> (¬{FA}x v {O}x) sent12: (x): ¬{AF}x -> (¬{DP}x v {O}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> ({EO}x v {E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is seamanlike is incorrect then it is not a Moorish and/or it does antique dregs. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not seamanlike either is a kind of a Moorish or antiques dregs or both. sent2: something that does not ladder Humulin is not adrenocortical or a viscera or both. sent3: the bast is a Moorish or it antiques dregs or both if it is not seamanlike. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not mesenteric it is a chute and/or it does respect. sent5: if something does incur it is not a racker and/or it is dynastic. sent6: if the bast is seamanlike then either it is not Moorish or it does antique dregs or both. sent7: if the dregs is not sepulchral then it is not longitudinal or it is Moorish or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a respected then it is quadrupedal or does ladder Xylomelum or both. sent9: that there exists something such that if it is seamanlike then either it is non-Moorish or it antiques dregs or both is not false. sent10: something is not dynastic and/or it is a chute if it is a kind of a Lancelot. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a burgrave then it is not a shirtlifter or it does deceive banging or both. sent12: either something is not imitative or it does deceive banging or both if it is not a slavery. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a burgrave then it either ladders outrage or ladders Xylomelum or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something that does not ladder Humulin is not adrenocortical or a viscera or both.

something that does not ladder Humulin is not adrenocortical or a viscera or both.

the bast is a Moorish or it antiques dregs or both if it is not seamanlike.

the auto-mechanic is not a farmstead.

sent1: the wollastonite is not chaetal if that the tracer is chaetal and it does deceive injection is not true. sent2: either the wollastonite is manorial or it is feudal or both. sent3: the fact that something is not a farmstead but chaetal is not true if it does not deceive injection. sent4: that the cross-link does not ladder Connecticuter is correct if that the wollastonite is both not a farmstead and chaetal is wrong. sent5: if the woodruff fingers then the Scandinavian is not a fingers. sent6: if the wollastonite is not chaetal the auto-mechanic is a farmstead and it ladders Connecticuter. sent7: the wollastonite does not ladder Connecticuter if it is not manorial. sent8: the auto-mechanic does not ladder Connecticuter if the wollastonite is not manorial. sent9: if the Scandinavian is not a fingered that the tracer is chaetal thing that does deceive injection is not correct. sent10: the auto-mechanic is not a farmstead if the wollastonite does not ladder Connecticuter. sent11: if the cloche is not a babytalk then the woodruff is a fingered that is a sorrow. sent12: either the wollastonite is not manorial or it is feudal or both.

¬{A}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cross-link does not ladder Connecticuter.

¬{B}{du}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the auto-mechanic is not a farmstead. ; $context$ = sent1: the wollastonite is not chaetal if that the tracer is chaetal and it does deceive injection is not true. sent2: either the wollastonite is manorial or it is feudal or both. sent3: the fact that something is not a farmstead but chaetal is not true if it does not deceive injection. sent4: that the cross-link does not ladder Connecticuter is correct if that the wollastonite is both not a farmstead and chaetal is wrong. sent5: if the woodruff fingers then the Scandinavian is not a fingers. sent6: if the wollastonite is not chaetal the auto-mechanic is a farmstead and it ladders Connecticuter. sent7: the wollastonite does not ladder Connecticuter if it is not manorial. sent8: the auto-mechanic does not ladder Connecticuter if the wollastonite is not manorial. sent9: if the Scandinavian is not a fingered that the tracer is chaetal thing that does deceive injection is not correct. sent10: the auto-mechanic is not a farmstead if the wollastonite does not ladder Connecticuter. sent11: if the cloche is not a babytalk then the woodruff is a fingered that is a sorrow. sent12: either the wollastonite is not manorial or it is feudal or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not a farmstead but chaetal is not true if it does not deceive injection.

the fact that something is not a farmstead but chaetal is not true if it does not deceive injection.

the auto-mechanic does not ladder Connecticuter if the wollastonite is not manorial.

not the laddering garboard but the intussuscepting happens.

sent1: the antiquing crate occurs. sent2: the fact that the laddering exposition does not occur is true. sent3: the nondisposableness occurs. sent4: the non-printableness and the stinger happens. sent5: the concentricness occurs. sent6: the assisting does not occur. sent7: the scission happens. sent8: the lockstep occurs. sent9: the swelling happens. sent10: the lucifugousness does not occur. sent11: that the laddering exposition does not occur is prevented by that the laddering garboard occurs. sent12: the chatting cowpie occurs. sent13: the telocentricness does not occur and the formalisticness happens. sent14: the deceiving trainload occurs.

(¬{A} & {C})

sent1: {JE} sent2: ¬{B} sent3: {BI} sent4: (¬{JB} & {IH}) sent5: {S} sent6: ¬{ET} sent7: {EI} sent8: {HQ} sent9: {HI} sent10: ¬{GM} sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: {BS} sent13: (¬{DR} & {CL}) sent14: {FI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the laddering garboard but the intussuscepting happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the antiquing crate occurs. sent2: the fact that the laddering exposition does not occur is true. sent3: the nondisposableness occurs. sent4: the non-printableness and the stinger happens. sent5: the concentricness occurs. sent6: the assisting does not occur. sent7: the scission happens. sent8: the lockstep occurs. sent9: the swelling happens. sent10: the lucifugousness does not occur. sent11: that the laddering exposition does not occur is prevented by that the laddering garboard occurs. sent12: the chatting cowpie occurs. sent13: the telocentricness does not occur and the formalisticness happens. sent14: the deceiving trainload occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the laddering exposition does not occur is prevented by that the laddering garboard occurs.

that the laddering exposition does not occur is prevented by that the laddering garboard occurs.

the fact that the laddering exposition does not occur is true.

the gunfire does not occur.

sent1: the inheritableness does not occur. sent2: the anuranness does not occur. sent3: the cooling does not occur. sent4: the laddering henna does not occur. sent5: the reconcilableness does not occur if the stocking does not occur. sent6: the seven-up does not occur. sent7: that the deceiving quilted does not occur hold. sent8: the retention does not occur if the fact that the lark does not occur is correct. sent9: the non-cyclopeanness prevents the citifying. sent10: the statutoriness does not occur. sent11: the argenticness does not occur. sent12: the bronchospasm does not occur. sent13: the watering does not occur. sent14: if the seven-up does not occur then the gunfire does not occur. sent15: the antiquing chemoreceptor does not occur. sent16: the coupling does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬{CO} sent2: ¬{DJ} sent3: ¬{GF} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: ¬{HS} -> ¬{CF} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{K} sent8: ¬{BE} -> ¬{GH} sent9: ¬{JE} -> ¬{II} sent10: ¬{AP} sent11: ¬{AN} sent12: ¬{EC} sent13: ¬{ER} sent14: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{JH} sent16: ¬{GC}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the gunfire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the inheritableness does not occur. sent2: the anuranness does not occur. sent3: the cooling does not occur. sent4: the laddering henna does not occur. sent5: the reconcilableness does not occur if the stocking does not occur. sent6: the seven-up does not occur. sent7: that the deceiving quilted does not occur hold. sent8: the retention does not occur if the fact that the lark does not occur is correct. sent9: the non-cyclopeanness prevents the citifying. sent10: the statutoriness does not occur. sent11: the argenticness does not occur. sent12: the bronchospasm does not occur. sent13: the watering does not occur. sent14: if the seven-up does not occur then the gunfire does not occur. sent15: the antiquing chemoreceptor does not occur. sent16: the coupling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the seven-up does not occur then the gunfire does not occur.

if the seven-up does not occur then the gunfire does not occur.

the seven-up does not occur.

the pharyngealness does not occur.

sent1: the pharyngealness occurs if the remuneration occurs. sent2: the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens. sent3: that the remuneration does not occur is prevented by that the inconsiderateness happens.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pharyngealness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pharyngealness occurs if the remuneration occurs. sent2: the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens. sent3: that the remuneration does not occur is prevented by that the inconsiderateness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the inconsiderateness occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the remuneration occurs.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens.

The inconsiderateness happens when the shoring occurs.

that the remuneration does not occur is prevented by that the inconsiderateness happens.

the pharyngealness does not occur.

sent1: the pharyngealness occurs if the remuneration occurs. sent2: the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens. sent3: that the remuneration does not occur is prevented by that the inconsiderateness happens.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the pharyngealness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pharyngealness occurs if the remuneration occurs. sent2: the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens. sent3: that the remuneration does not occur is prevented by that the inconsiderateness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the inconsiderateness occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the remuneration occurs.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shoring occurs and the inconsiderateness happens.

The inconsiderateness occurs when the shoring occurs.

the pharyngealness occurs if the remuneration occurs.

the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron.

sent1: the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics. sent2: if the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder and/or it is not a Aplectrum does not hold then the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. sent3: if the stoker is not phonetics the manul is a kind of a Aplectrum. sent4: the stoker is non-phonetics.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics. sent2: if the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder and/or it is not a Aplectrum does not hold then the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. sent3: if the stoker is not phonetics the manul is a kind of a Aplectrum. sent4: the stoker is non-phonetics. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a Aplectrum or both is not right.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics.

If the manul is not a kind of Aplectrum or if the stoker is not phonetics, it doesn't hold.

the stoker is non-phonetics.

the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron.

sent1: the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics. sent2: if the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder and/or it is not a Aplectrum does not hold then the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. sent3: if the stoker is not phonetics the manul is a kind of a Aplectrum. sent4: the stoker is non-phonetics.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics. sent2: if the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder and/or it is not a Aplectrum does not hold then the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron. sent3: if the stoker is not phonetics the manul is a kind of a Aplectrum. sent4: the stoker is non-phonetics. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a Aplectrum or both is not right.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that either the manul does not deceive stakeholder or it is not a kind of a Aplectrum or both does not hold if the stoker is not phonetics.

If the manul is not a kind of Aplectrum or if the stoker is not phonetics, it does not hold.

if the fact that the manul does not deceive stakeholder and/or it is not a Aplectrum does not hold then the stakeholder does not deceive antineutron.

there exists something such that it deceives Lasiurus and it does antique boughed.

sent1: if the fact that the prostitute does not antique boughed and is a kind of a Hollywood is not true then the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent2: the gingerol deceives Lasiurus. sent3: The Lasiurus deceives gingerol. sent4: the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood. sent5: the sateen is forcipate and is a throbbing if the gingerol is non-Hollywood. sent6: the fipple does not dull if the stratosphere antiques Rangifer or it is not dull or both. sent7: if the fipple is not dull then that the briefcase is a Issachar and it deceives Lasiurus is false. sent8: the gingerol is not Hollywood if the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent9: the sateen is Hollywood.

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

sent1: ¬(¬{B}{d} & {A}{d}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: {AB}{ab} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> ({CL}{a} & {DR}{a}) sent6: ({F}{h} v ¬{E}{h}) -> ¬{E}{g} sent7: ¬{E}{g} -> ¬({D}{f} & {C}{f}) sent8: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬{A}{b} sent9: {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

something is forcipate and it is a throbbing.

(Ex): ({CL}x & {DR}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it deceives Lasiurus and it does antique boughed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the prostitute does not antique boughed and is a kind of a Hollywood is not true then the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent2: the gingerol deceives Lasiurus. sent3: The Lasiurus deceives gingerol. sent4: the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood. sent5: the sateen is forcipate and is a throbbing if the gingerol is non-Hollywood. sent6: the fipple does not dull if the stratosphere antiques Rangifer or it is not dull or both. sent7: if the fipple is not dull then that the briefcase is a Issachar and it deceives Lasiurus is false. sent8: the gingerol is not Hollywood if the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent9: the sateen is Hollywood. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the gingerol antiques boughed.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the gingerol does deceive Lasiurus and does antique boughed.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood.

If the sateen is a kind of Hollywood, the gingerol antiques bought it.

the sateen is Hollywood.

there exists something such that it deceives Lasiurus and it does antique boughed.

sent1: if the fact that the prostitute does not antique boughed and is a kind of a Hollywood is not true then the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent2: the gingerol deceives Lasiurus. sent3: The Lasiurus deceives gingerol. sent4: the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood. sent5: the sateen is forcipate and is a throbbing if the gingerol is non-Hollywood. sent6: the fipple does not dull if the stratosphere antiques Rangifer or it is not dull or both. sent7: if the fipple is not dull then that the briefcase is a Issachar and it deceives Lasiurus is false. sent8: the gingerol is not Hollywood if the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent9: the sateen is Hollywood.

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

sent1: ¬(¬{B}{d} & {A}{d}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: {AB}{ab} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> ({CL}{a} & {DR}{a}) sent6: ({F}{h} v ¬{E}{h}) -> ¬{E}{g} sent7: ¬{E}{g} -> ¬({D}{f} & {C}{f}) sent8: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬{A}{b} sent9: {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

something is forcipate and it is a throbbing.

(Ex): ({CL}x & {DR}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it deceives Lasiurus and it does antique boughed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the prostitute does not antique boughed and is a kind of a Hollywood is not true then the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent2: the gingerol deceives Lasiurus. sent3: The Lasiurus deceives gingerol. sent4: the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood. sent5: the sateen is forcipate and is a throbbing if the gingerol is non-Hollywood. sent6: the fipple does not dull if the stratosphere antiques Rangifer or it is not dull or both. sent7: if the fipple is not dull then that the briefcase is a Issachar and it deceives Lasiurus is false. sent8: the gingerol is not Hollywood if the euglena is not a kind of a Hollywood. sent9: the sateen is Hollywood. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the gingerol antiques boughed.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the gingerol does deceive Lasiurus and does antique boughed.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gingerol antiques boughed if the sateen is a kind of a Hollywood.

The gingerol antiques are kind of a Hollywood.

the gingerol deceives Lasiurus.

that the laddering pneumatophore happens and the chip occurs is false.

sent1: that the dealings does not occur leads to that both the coma and the deductible occurs. sent2: not the centrosomicness but the bracteolateness occurs if the antiquing horsewoman does not occur. sent3: the landmark happens. sent4: the gutsiness and the degradation occurs. sent5: the degradation occurs. sent6: the non-centrosomicness yields that the laddering pneumatophore does not occur and the chip does not occur. sent7: the landmark and the laddering pneumatophore happens. sent8: both the ebbing and the landmark happens if the laddering pneumatophore does not occur. sent9: both the chipping and the centrosomicness occurs. sent10: the centrosomicness occurs. sent11: both the chatting interrupt and the alabaster occurs.

¬({B} & {C})

sent1: ¬{H} -> ({BQ} & {F}) sent2: ¬{G} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent3: {A} sent4: ({FM} & {ER}) sent5: {ER} sent6: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ({BR} & {A}) sent9: ({C} & {D}) sent10: {D} sent11: ({BG} & {JC})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ebb and the coma occurs.

({BR} & {BQ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the laddering pneumatophore happens and the chip occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dealings does not occur leads to that both the coma and the deductible occurs. sent2: not the centrosomicness but the bracteolateness occurs if the antiquing horsewoman does not occur. sent3: the landmark happens. sent4: the gutsiness and the degradation occurs. sent5: the degradation occurs. sent6: the non-centrosomicness yields that the laddering pneumatophore does not occur and the chip does not occur. sent7: the landmark and the laddering pneumatophore happens. sent8: both the ebbing and the landmark happens if the laddering pneumatophore does not occur. sent9: both the chipping and the centrosomicness occurs. sent10: the centrosomicness occurs. sent11: both the chatting interrupt and the alabaster occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the laddering pneumatophore happens.; sent9 -> int2: the chip happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the landmark and the laddering pneumatophore happens.

the landmark and the laddering pneumatophore happens.

both the chipping and the centrosomicness occurs.

the platen is malicious.

sent1: there exists something such that it does chat Faunus. sent2: that the platen does not chat Faunus but it is a kind of a Genet is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the fact that the platen does chat Faunus and is not a Genet is right does not hold. sent4: if something does chat Faunus the fact that the platen does not chat Faunus and it is not a Genet is wrong. sent5: if there exists something such that it chats Faunus the fact that the platen does not chats Faunus and is a Genet is not true. sent6: if something chats Faunus that the platen chats Faunus and is not a Genet is wrong.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (Ex): {AA}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): {AA}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): {AA}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): {AA}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the platen is malicious. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does chat Faunus. sent2: that the platen does not chat Faunus but it is a kind of a Genet is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the fact that the platen does chat Faunus and is not a Genet is right does not hold. sent4: if something does chat Faunus the fact that the platen does not chat Faunus and it is not a Genet is wrong. sent5: if there exists something such that it chats Faunus the fact that the platen does not chats Faunus and is a Genet is not true. sent6: if something chats Faunus that the platen chats Faunus and is not a Genet is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does chat Faunus.

there exists something such that it does chat Faunus.

if something does chat Faunus the fact that the platen does not chat Faunus and it is not a Genet is wrong.

the depressor is a kind of non-Algerian thing that is unplayable.

sent1: if the oenomel is not aleuronic and it does not antique digression then it does not chat Englishman. sent2: if the depressor deceives eye-lotion it is not a Algerian. sent3: the fact that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid is incorrect. sent4: the depressor is unplayable. sent5: something is not ammino if it does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent6: if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian. sent7: the puffing is not unplayable but it is a Hussein. sent8: if that something is ammino and does chat Englishman does not hold it is not ammino. sent9: if that the fact that the depressor is not a Algerian but it is unplayable is true is false the Omaha is not unplayable. sent10: that the depressor deceives eye-lotion and is afraid is not correct. sent11: if the oenomel antiques digression then the depressor does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent12: the focus does not antique eatage. sent13: that something is non-Algerian thing that is unplayable is false if it is not ammino.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (¬{A}{ig} & {EH}{ig}) sent8: (x): ¬({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{jb} sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: {F}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{H}{d} sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the depressor is not a kind of a Algerian and is unplayable is not right.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the depressor is a kind of non-Algerian thing that is unplayable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the oenomel is not aleuronic and it does not antique digression then it does not chat Englishman. sent2: if the depressor deceives eye-lotion it is not a Algerian. sent3: the fact that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid is incorrect. sent4: the depressor is unplayable. sent5: something is not ammino if it does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent6: if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian. sent7: the puffing is not unplayable but it is a Hussein. sent8: if that something is ammino and does chat Englishman does not hold it is not ammino. sent9: if that the fact that the depressor is not a Algerian but it is unplayable is true is false the Omaha is not unplayable. sent10: that the depressor deceives eye-lotion and is afraid is not correct. sent11: if the oenomel antiques digression then the depressor does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent12: the focus does not antique eatage. sent13: that something is non-Algerian thing that is unplayable is false if it is not ammino. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the depressor is not a Algerian.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian.

If the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid, it is not a kind of Algeria.

the fact that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid is incorrect.

the depressor is a kind of non-Algerian thing that is unplayable.

sent1: if the oenomel is not aleuronic and it does not antique digression then it does not chat Englishman. sent2: if the depressor deceives eye-lotion it is not a Algerian. sent3: the fact that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid is incorrect. sent4: the depressor is unplayable. sent5: something is not ammino if it does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent6: if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian. sent7: the puffing is not unplayable but it is a Hussein. sent8: if that something is ammino and does chat Englishman does not hold it is not ammino. sent9: if that the fact that the depressor is not a Algerian but it is unplayable is true is false the Omaha is not unplayable. sent10: that the depressor deceives eye-lotion and is afraid is not correct. sent11: if the oenomel antiques digression then the depressor does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent12: the focus does not antique eatage. sent13: that something is non-Algerian thing that is unplayable is false if it is not ammino.

(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (¬{A}{ig} & {EH}{ig}) sent8: (x): ¬({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{jb} sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: {F}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent12: ¬{H}{d} sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the depressor is not a kind of a Algerian and is unplayable is not right.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the depressor is a kind of non-Algerian thing that is unplayable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the oenomel is not aleuronic and it does not antique digression then it does not chat Englishman. sent2: if the depressor deceives eye-lotion it is not a Algerian. sent3: the fact that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid is incorrect. sent4: the depressor is unplayable. sent5: something is not ammino if it does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent6: if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian. sent7: the puffing is not unplayable but it is a Hussein. sent8: if that something is ammino and does chat Englishman does not hold it is not ammino. sent9: if that the fact that the depressor is not a Algerian but it is unplayable is true is false the Omaha is not unplayable. sent10: that the depressor deceives eye-lotion and is afraid is not correct. sent11: if the oenomel antiques digression then the depressor does not chat Englishman and is not aleuronic. sent12: the focus does not antique eatage. sent13: that something is non-Algerian thing that is unplayable is false if it is not ammino. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the depressor is not a Algerian.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid does not hold it is not a kind of a Algerian.

If the depressor does not deceive eye-lotion but it is afraid, it is not a kind of Algerian.

the depressor is unplayable.

the lectureship occurs and the intimidation happens.

sent1: the symbolicness does not occur. sent2: the shambolicness and the historicalness happens. sent3: that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true. sent4: the acaulescentness happens if the diving does not occur. sent5: the bout happens. sent6: the dogmatizing happens. sent7: the antiquing Stein does not occur. sent8: the acaulescentness occurs. sent9: that the intimidation and the acaulescentness occurs is brought about by that the diving does not occur. sent10: the humiliation does not occur. sent11: the laddering Oncorhynchus happens. sent12: the sparging occurs and the tenderness happens. sent13: the Bahamianness does not occur. sent14: that the lectureship happens is correct if the fact that the deceiving Garrick does not occur and the antiquing Stein does not occur is not incorrect.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{HO} sent2: ({DS} & {AQ}) sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{F} -> {E} sent5: {DU} sent6: {AL} sent7: ¬{B} sent8: {E} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ¬{AA} sent11: {EG} sent12: ({AE} & {CN}) sent13: ¬{CM} sent14: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that both the lectureship and the intimidation happens is not true.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lectureship occurs and the intimidation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the symbolicness does not occur. sent2: the shambolicness and the historicalness happens. sent3: that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true. sent4: the acaulescentness happens if the diving does not occur. sent5: the bout happens. sent6: the dogmatizing happens. sent7: the antiquing Stein does not occur. sent8: the acaulescentness occurs. sent9: that the intimidation and the acaulescentness occurs is brought about by that the diving does not occur. sent10: the humiliation does not occur. sent11: the laddering Oncorhynchus happens. sent12: the sparging occurs and the tenderness happens. sent13: the Bahamianness does not occur. sent14: that the lectureship happens is correct if the fact that the deceiving Garrick does not occur and the antiquing Stein does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true.

It's true that the deceiving Garrick doesn't happen.

the antiquing Stein does not occur.

the lectureship occurs and the intimidation happens.

sent1: the symbolicness does not occur. sent2: the shambolicness and the historicalness happens. sent3: that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true. sent4: the acaulescentness happens if the diving does not occur. sent5: the bout happens. sent6: the dogmatizing happens. sent7: the antiquing Stein does not occur. sent8: the acaulescentness occurs. sent9: that the intimidation and the acaulescentness occurs is brought about by that the diving does not occur. sent10: the humiliation does not occur. sent11: the laddering Oncorhynchus happens. sent12: the sparging occurs and the tenderness happens. sent13: the Bahamianness does not occur. sent14: that the lectureship happens is correct if the fact that the deceiving Garrick does not occur and the antiquing Stein does not occur is not incorrect.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{HO} sent2: ({DS} & {AQ}) sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{F} -> {E} sent5: {DU} sent6: {AL} sent7: ¬{B} sent8: {E} sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ¬{AA} sent11: {EG} sent12: ({AE} & {CN}) sent13: ¬{CM} sent14: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that both the lectureship and the intimidation happens is not true.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lectureship occurs and the intimidation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the symbolicness does not occur. sent2: the shambolicness and the historicalness happens. sent3: that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true. sent4: the acaulescentness happens if the diving does not occur. sent5: the bout happens. sent6: the dogmatizing happens. sent7: the antiquing Stein does not occur. sent8: the acaulescentness occurs. sent9: that the intimidation and the acaulescentness occurs is brought about by that the diving does not occur. sent10: the humiliation does not occur. sent11: the laddering Oncorhynchus happens. sent12: the sparging occurs and the tenderness happens. sent13: the Bahamianness does not occur. sent14: that the lectureship happens is correct if the fact that the deceiving Garrick does not occur and the antiquing Stein does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the deceiving Garrick does not occur is true.

The deceiving Garrick doesn't happen.

that the lectureship happens is correct if the fact that the deceiving Garrick does not occur and the antiquing Stein does not occur is not incorrect.

the gyroscope is not a snooker.

sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gyroscope is not a snooker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

There is something that is not calligraphic.

if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false.

the gyroscope is not a snooker.

sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gyroscope is not a snooker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

There is something that isn't calligraphic.

if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct.

the gyroscope is not a snooker.

sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

¬{F}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gyroscope is not a snooker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false that the greasewood is not a slashed is correct. sent2: if the fact that the gyroscope is not cucurbitaceous is right that the infiltrator is oneiric and is not cucurbitaceous does not hold. sent3: if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right. sent4: the gyroscope does not ladder greasewood. sent5: something is not a kind of a snooker if it does ladder greasewood. sent6: there exists something such that it antiques undutifulness. sent7: there exists something such that it does ladder greasewood. sent8: if the infiltrator is a snooker then the gyroscope is not oneiric. sent9: if there is something such that it is not calligraphic then that the infiltrator does not ladder greasewood and is oneiric is false. sent10: there exists something such that it is not calligraphic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not calligraphic.

There is a thing that is not calligraphic.

if the greasewood is not a slashed then that the gyroscope is both cucurbitaceous and not a slashed is not right.

the imbibition is both not a cetacean and not clayey.

sent1: the fact that the chyme is a kind of reparable thing that is not Pauline is not true. sent2: if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure. sent3: the fact that the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey is not right if there is something such that it does not insure. sent4: the chyme is a kind of an optician and it ladders futurology if that the allopurinol does not antique allopurinol hold. sent5: something is non-cetacean thing that is not clayey if it does not insure.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the imbibition is both not a cetacean and not clayey. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the chyme is a kind of reparable thing that is not Pauline is not true. sent2: if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure. sent3: the fact that the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey is not right if there is something such that it does not insure. sent4: the chyme is a kind of an optician and it ladders futurology if that the allopurinol does not antique allopurinol hold. sent5: something is non-cetacean thing that is not clayey if it does not insure. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the chyme does not insure.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not insure.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure.

The fact that the chyme is reparable is not true.

the fact that the chyme is a kind of reparable thing that is not Pauline is not true.

the imbibition is both not a cetacean and not clayey.

sent1: the fact that the chyme is a kind of reparable thing that is not Pauline is not true. sent2: if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure. sent3: the fact that the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey is not right if there is something such that it does not insure. sent4: the chyme is a kind of an optician and it ladders futurology if that the allopurinol does not antique allopurinol hold. sent5: something is non-cetacean thing that is not clayey if it does not insure.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the imbibition is both not a cetacean and not clayey. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the chyme is a kind of reparable thing that is not Pauline is not true. sent2: if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure. sent3: the fact that the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey is not right if there is something such that it does not insure. sent4: the chyme is a kind of an optician and it ladders futurology if that the allopurinol does not antique allopurinol hold. sent5: something is non-cetacean thing that is not clayey if it does not insure. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the chyme does not insure.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not insure.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the chyme is both reparable and not Pauline is not true then it does not insure.

It does not guarantee that the chyme is reparable if it is not true.

the fact that the imbibition is not a cetacean and it is not clayey is not right if there is something such that it does not insure.

the generic is a jawed.

sent1: if the generic is not alimentative but it entrenches then the tripper does not restore. sent2: if the tripper does not restore the harpist is a sawpit and it is an officialdom. sent3: if something is not a kind of a sawpit and it is not cismontane then it is not a jawed. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not ladder bored and does not entrench is not true. sent5: the booker is a kind of a jawed. sent6: if that the harpist is a sawpit hold then that that the gypsum is not a jawed but it does antique finisher hold is not correct. sent7: if something antiques finisher then it is not a sawpit and is not cismontane. sent8: if the harpist is non-cismontane then the tripper does antique sedative and is Procrustean. sent9: the generic does entrench if there exists something such that that it does not ladder bored and it does not entrench is wrong. sent10: if something is a jawed then it is Procrustean and is not cismontane. sent11: the generic is not alimentative and it does not deceive tank. sent12: the harpist is not cismontane.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the gypsum is Procrustean.

{AB}{di}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the generic is a jawed. ; $context$ = sent1: if the generic is not alimentative but it entrenches then the tripper does not restore. sent2: if the tripper does not restore the harpist is a sawpit and it is an officialdom. sent3: if something is not a kind of a sawpit and it is not cismontane then it is not a jawed. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not ladder bored and does not entrench is not true. sent5: the booker is a kind of a jawed. sent6: if that the harpist is a sawpit hold then that that the gypsum is not a jawed but it does antique finisher hold is not correct. sent7: if something antiques finisher then it is not a sawpit and is not cismontane. sent8: if the harpist is non-cismontane then the tripper does antique sedative and is Procrustean. sent9: the generic does entrench if there exists something such that that it does not ladder bored and it does not entrench is wrong. sent10: if something is a jawed then it is Procrustean and is not cismontane. sent11: the generic is not alimentative and it does not deceive tank. sent12: the harpist is not cismontane. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the harpist is non-cismontane then the tripper does antique sedative and is Procrustean.

if the harpist is non-cismontane then the tripper does antique sedative and is Procrustean.

the harpist is not cismontane.

the non-apoplectiformness and the inhumaneness happens.

sent1: if the fact that the antiquing eaglet and the orthodonticsness occurs is not right then the apoplectiformness does not occur. sent2: the tuberousness happens and the synclinalness happens. sent3: if that either the detention does not occur or the tuberousness happens or both is not right then the synclinalness happens. sent4: the humaneness is prevented by that both the tuberousness and the synclinalness happens. sent5: the mintage does not occur if the superfetation does not occur. sent6: if the fact that both the brassiness and the window-shoping occurs is incorrect then the neutralization does not occur.

(¬{B} & ¬{A})

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({D} & {C}) sent3: ¬(¬{E} v {D}) -> {C} sent4: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{BP} -> ¬{GG} sent6: ¬({GI} & {L}) -> ¬{EQ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the apoplectiformness does not occur and the humaneness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{B} & ¬{A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the non-apoplectiformness and the inhumaneness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the antiquing eaglet and the orthodonticsness occurs is not right then the apoplectiformness does not occur. sent2: the tuberousness happens and the synclinalness happens. sent3: if that either the detention does not occur or the tuberousness happens or both is not right then the synclinalness happens. sent4: the humaneness is prevented by that both the tuberousness and the synclinalness happens. sent5: the mintage does not occur if the superfetation does not occur. sent6: if the fact that both the brassiness and the window-shoping occurs is incorrect then the neutralization does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the humaneness is prevented by that both the tuberousness and the synclinalness happens.

the humaneness is prevented by that both the tuberousness and the synclinalness happens.

the tuberousness happens and the synclinalness happens.

the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman.

sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress.

(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the tuck is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is wrong.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it ladders riser and is a headmistress does not hold.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the tuck is not neurophysiological.; sent2 -> int3: the tuck does ladder horsewoman if it is not mayoral.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the tuck ladders horsewoman.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold.

The fact that the headmistress does ladder riser does not hold up.

if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological.

the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman.

sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress.

(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the tuck is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is wrong.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it ladders riser and is a headmistress does not hold.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the tuck is not neurophysiological.; sent2 -> int3: the tuck does ladder horsewoman if it is not mayoral.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the tuck ladders horsewoman.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold.

The fact that the grizzly is a headmistress does not hold up.

something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral.

the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman.

sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress.

(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the tuck is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is wrong.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tuck is a kind of non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-mayoral then that it is non-neurophysiological thing that ladders horsewoman is not correct. sent2: something ladders horsewoman if it is not mayoral. sent3: the juror does not depress if the fact that the nanny does cachinnate and it depress is not right. sent4: the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold. sent5: the tuck is not mayoral. sent6: something is not a heatstroke and is not a feist if it does not depress. sent7: the grizzly is not mayoral but it is a headmistress. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does ladder manana and is a cardinalfish is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a headmistress the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold then the tuck is not neurophysiological. sent11: that something does cachinnate and depresses is not true if it is not a cardinalfish. sent12: something ladders riser and is a headmistress. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it ladders riser and is a headmistress does not hold.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the tuck is not neurophysiological.; sent2 -> int3: the tuck does ladder horsewoman if it is not mayoral.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the tuck ladders horsewoman.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the grizzly does ladder riser and it is a headmistress does not hold.

The fact that the headmistress does a ladder riser does not hold up.

the tuck is not mayoral.

the fact that the dictatorialness does not occur is true.

sent1: not the chatting esker but the gastroenterostomy happens if the chatting dissimilarity happens. sent2: the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur or the deceiving collusion happens or both is not right. sent3: if that the laddering Calais happens and/or the deceiving collusion occurs is incorrect the fact that the dictatorialness does not occur hold. sent4: the laddering Calais happens. sent5: the dictatorialness does not occur if the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur and/or the deceiving collusion happens is incorrect. sent6: that the journalisticness does not occur and/or the conceptualization occurs is wrong. sent7: that the adornment does not occur or the oversimplification happens or both is not true. sent8: the gastroenterostomy does not occur. sent9: that the chatting dissimilarity happens and the skirling occurs is brought about by that the deceiving Anacardium does not occur. sent10: that either the circumduction does not occur or the antiquing Vernier happens or both is not true. sent11: if the chatting esker does not occur then the exulting and the dictatorialness occurs. sent12: if the fact that the strafe occurs and/or the equalness occurs does not hold the visitation does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: {E} -> (¬{C} & {D}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent3: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: {AA} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬(¬{CH} v {IU}) sent7: ¬(¬{CE} v {IR}) sent8: ¬{D} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent10: ¬(¬{IA} v {CJ}) sent11: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent12: ¬({HA} v {CF}) -> ¬{HI}

PROVED

PROVED

the dictatorialness happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dictatorialness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: not the chatting esker but the gastroenterostomy happens if the chatting dissimilarity happens. sent2: the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur or the deceiving collusion happens or both is not right. sent3: if that the laddering Calais happens and/or the deceiving collusion occurs is incorrect the fact that the dictatorialness does not occur hold. sent4: the laddering Calais happens. sent5: the dictatorialness does not occur if the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur and/or the deceiving collusion happens is incorrect. sent6: that the journalisticness does not occur and/or the conceptualization occurs is wrong. sent7: that the adornment does not occur or the oversimplification happens or both is not true. sent8: the gastroenterostomy does not occur. sent9: that the chatting dissimilarity happens and the skirling occurs is brought about by that the deceiving Anacardium does not occur. sent10: that either the circumduction does not occur or the antiquing Vernier happens or both is not true. sent11: if the chatting esker does not occur then the exulting and the dictatorialness occurs. sent12: if the fact that the strafe occurs and/or the equalness occurs does not hold the visitation does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dictatorialness does not occur if the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur and/or the deceiving collusion happens is incorrect.

the dictatorialness does not occur if the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur and/or the deceiving collusion happens is incorrect.

the fact that the laddering Calais does not occur or the deceiving collusion happens or both is not right.

the Zoroastrian is a kind of non-absolutist a NYSE.

sent1: if the schnitzel is not a kind of a hymn the gonad is not French but it deceives oilfield. sent2: the polarimeter is a hymn. sent3: if the schnitzel is a sprout the Zoroastrian is a hymn. sent4: the schnitzel is absolutist. sent5: if that the topsoil is a hymn is right the schnitzel is a kind of an absolutist. sent6: if that something is insatiate but it does constipate does not hold then it does not constipate. sent7: something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn. sent8: if the Zoroastrian hymns it is a NYSE. sent9: the fact that something is non-absolutist a NYSE does not hold if it is not a kind of a hymn. sent10: that the topsoil does not ladder simazine is right if something that does chat digression does not antique cagoule. sent11: something is a sprout and it does hymn if it does not constipate. sent12: if the schnitzel is a NYSE then the Zoroastrian does sprout. sent13: the dimetrodon is Jesuitical. sent14: the schnitzel is a NYSE if the Zoroastrian sprouts. sent15: the spectrograph does hymn. sent16: the polarimeter chats digression but it does not antique cagoule if it does not chat hatefulness. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of insatiate thing that constipates is not right if it does not ladder simazine. sent18: the schnitzel sprouts. sent19: if the dimetrodon is Jesuitical then it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both. sent20: if the schnitzel is a hymn the Zoroastrian is a sprout. sent21: the Zoroastrian is a NYSE. sent22: something is a NYSE if it is a kind of a hymn. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both the polarimeter does not chat hatefulness.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{FH}{bs} & {AU}{bs}) sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {B}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent4: {AA}{a} sent5: {A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent12: {AB}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent13: {K}{d} sent14: {B}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent15: {A}{cp} sent16: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent17: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) sent18: {B}{a} sent19: {K}{d} -> (¬{I}{d} v ¬{J}{d}) sent20: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent21: {AB}{aa} sent22: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent23: (x): (¬{I}x v ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the gonad is not a French but it does deceive oilfield.

(¬{FH}{bs} & {AU}{bs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Zoroastrian is a kind of non-absolutist a NYSE. ; $context$ = sent1: if the schnitzel is not a kind of a hymn the gonad is not French but it deceives oilfield. sent2: the polarimeter is a hymn. sent3: if the schnitzel is a sprout the Zoroastrian is a hymn. sent4: the schnitzel is absolutist. sent5: if that the topsoil is a hymn is right the schnitzel is a kind of an absolutist. sent6: if that something is insatiate but it does constipate does not hold then it does not constipate. sent7: something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn. sent8: if the Zoroastrian hymns it is a NYSE. sent9: the fact that something is non-absolutist a NYSE does not hold if it is not a kind of a hymn. sent10: that the topsoil does not ladder simazine is right if something that does chat digression does not antique cagoule. sent11: something is a sprout and it does hymn if it does not constipate. sent12: if the schnitzel is a NYSE then the Zoroastrian does sprout. sent13: the dimetrodon is Jesuitical. sent14: the schnitzel is a NYSE if the Zoroastrian sprouts. sent15: the spectrograph does hymn. sent16: the polarimeter chats digression but it does not antique cagoule if it does not chat hatefulness. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of insatiate thing that constipates is not right if it does not ladder simazine. sent18: the schnitzel sprouts. sent19: if the dimetrodon is Jesuitical then it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both. sent20: if the schnitzel is a hymn the Zoroastrian is a sprout. sent21: the Zoroastrian is a NYSE. sent22: something is a NYSE if it is a kind of a hymn. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both the polarimeter does not chat hatefulness. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the Zoroastrian is a hymn it is not an absolutist and it is a kind of a NYSE.; sent3 & sent18 -> int2: the Zoroastrian hymns.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn.

If it does hymn, something is non-absolutist.

if the schnitzel is a sprout the Zoroastrian is a hymn.

the Zoroastrian is a kind of non-absolutist a NYSE.

sent1: if the schnitzel is not a kind of a hymn the gonad is not French but it deceives oilfield. sent2: the polarimeter is a hymn. sent3: if the schnitzel is a sprout the Zoroastrian is a hymn. sent4: the schnitzel is absolutist. sent5: if that the topsoil is a hymn is right the schnitzel is a kind of an absolutist. sent6: if that something is insatiate but it does constipate does not hold then it does not constipate. sent7: something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn. sent8: if the Zoroastrian hymns it is a NYSE. sent9: the fact that something is non-absolutist a NYSE does not hold if it is not a kind of a hymn. sent10: that the topsoil does not ladder simazine is right if something that does chat digression does not antique cagoule. sent11: something is a sprout and it does hymn if it does not constipate. sent12: if the schnitzel is a NYSE then the Zoroastrian does sprout. sent13: the dimetrodon is Jesuitical. sent14: the schnitzel is a NYSE if the Zoroastrian sprouts. sent15: the spectrograph does hymn. sent16: the polarimeter chats digression but it does not antique cagoule if it does not chat hatefulness. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of insatiate thing that constipates is not right if it does not ladder simazine. sent18: the schnitzel sprouts. sent19: if the dimetrodon is Jesuitical then it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both. sent20: if the schnitzel is a hymn the Zoroastrian is a sprout. sent21: the Zoroastrian is a NYSE. sent22: something is a NYSE if it is a kind of a hymn. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both the polarimeter does not chat hatefulness.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{FH}{bs} & {AU}{bs}) sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {B}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent4: {AA}{a} sent5: {A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent12: {AB}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent13: {K}{d} sent14: {B}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent15: {A}{cp} sent16: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent17: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) sent18: {B}{a} sent19: {K}{d} -> (¬{I}{d} v ¬{J}{d}) sent20: {A}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent21: {AB}{aa} sent22: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent23: (x): (¬{I}x v ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the gonad is not a French but it does deceive oilfield.

(¬{FH}{bs} & {AU}{bs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Zoroastrian is a kind of non-absolutist a NYSE. ; $context$ = sent1: if the schnitzel is not a kind of a hymn the gonad is not French but it deceives oilfield. sent2: the polarimeter is a hymn. sent3: if the schnitzel is a sprout the Zoroastrian is a hymn. sent4: the schnitzel is absolutist. sent5: if that the topsoil is a hymn is right the schnitzel is a kind of an absolutist. sent6: if that something is insatiate but it does constipate does not hold then it does not constipate. sent7: something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn. sent8: if the Zoroastrian hymns it is a NYSE. sent9: the fact that something is non-absolutist a NYSE does not hold if it is not a kind of a hymn. sent10: that the topsoil does not ladder simazine is right if something that does chat digression does not antique cagoule. sent11: something is a sprout and it does hymn if it does not constipate. sent12: if the schnitzel is a NYSE then the Zoroastrian does sprout. sent13: the dimetrodon is Jesuitical. sent14: the schnitzel is a NYSE if the Zoroastrian sprouts. sent15: the spectrograph does hymn. sent16: the polarimeter chats digression but it does not antique cagoule if it does not chat hatefulness. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of insatiate thing that constipates is not right if it does not ladder simazine. sent18: the schnitzel sprouts. sent19: if the dimetrodon is Jesuitical then it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both. sent20: if the schnitzel is a hymn the Zoroastrian is a sprout. sent21: the Zoroastrian is a NYSE. sent22: something is a NYSE if it is a kind of a hymn. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not antique numeral or it is not prosthodontic or both the polarimeter does not chat hatefulness. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the Zoroastrian is a hymn it is not an absolutist and it is a kind of a NYSE.; sent3 & sent18 -> int2: the Zoroastrian hymns.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is non-absolutist a NYSE if it does hymn.

If it does hymn, something is notabsolutist.

the schnitzel sprouts.

the superconductivity does not occur.

sent1: the camping does not occur if both the rh-negativeness and the superconductivity occurs. sent2: the camping happens if the attainment does not occur. sent3: if the attainment does not occur the fact that the rh-negativeness does not occur and the camping does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the tutelage does not occur hold. sent5: the non-backhandedness triggers the camping. sent6: the two-hitter does not occur and/or the chokehold does not occur if the fact that the constraint does not occur hold. sent7: that the Handelianness does not occur is brought about by that the prayer happens and the laddering adventurousness happens. sent8: the rh-negativeness occurs.

¬{B}

sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{D} -> {C} sent3: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{C}) sent4: ¬{F} sent5: ¬{E} -> {C} sent6: ¬{DM} -> (¬{DL} v ¬{DI}) sent7: ({IU} & {AJ}) -> ¬{FC} sent8: {A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the superconductivity occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the superconductivity does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the camping does not occur if both the rh-negativeness and the superconductivity occurs. sent2: the camping happens if the attainment does not occur. sent3: if the attainment does not occur the fact that the rh-negativeness does not occur and the camping does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the tutelage does not occur hold. sent5: the non-backhandedness triggers the camping. sent6: the two-hitter does not occur and/or the chokehold does not occur if the fact that the constraint does not occur hold. sent7: that the Handelianness does not occur is brought about by that the prayer happens and the laddering adventurousness happens. sent8: the rh-negativeness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rh-negativeness occurs.

the rh-negativeness occurs.

the camping does not occur if both the rh-negativeness and the superconductivity occurs.

the horsewhip does deceive aldose.

sent1: something deceives aldose if it is canonist. sent2: the fact that the flutist is not profound is right if it is histological. sent3: the muslin is not a kind of an excerpt if that it does not deceive vamp and is not a valency is not correct. sent4: that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is wrong. sent5: that the horsewhip is profound but it is not a canonist is incorrect if the flutist is not profound. sent6: the flutist is a kind of a canonist if that it campaigns and it is not profound is not right. sent7: if the flutist is not profound then that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is incorrect. sent8: if that something is histological but it does not campaign is false then the fact that it does deceive aldose is not wrong. sent9: the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false. sent10: that the flutist does not campaign and is not histological is false.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the horsewhip does deceive aldose. ; $context$ = sent1: something deceives aldose if it is canonist. sent2: the fact that the flutist is not profound is right if it is histological. sent3: the muslin is not a kind of an excerpt if that it does not deceive vamp and is not a valency is not correct. sent4: that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is wrong. sent5: that the horsewhip is profound but it is not a canonist is incorrect if the flutist is not profound. sent6: the flutist is a kind of a canonist if that it campaigns and it is not profound is not right. sent7: if the flutist is not profound then that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is incorrect. sent8: if that something is histological but it does not campaign is false then the fact that it does deceive aldose is not wrong. sent9: the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false. sent10: that the flutist does not campaign and is not histological is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false.

The flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of campaigning is false.

that the flutist does not campaign and is not histological is false.

the horsewhip does deceive aldose.

sent1: something deceives aldose if it is canonist. sent2: the fact that the flutist is not profound is right if it is histological. sent3: the muslin is not a kind of an excerpt if that it does not deceive vamp and is not a valency is not correct. sent4: that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is wrong. sent5: that the horsewhip is profound but it is not a canonist is incorrect if the flutist is not profound. sent6: the flutist is a kind of a canonist if that it campaigns and it is not profound is not right. sent7: if the flutist is not profound then that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is incorrect. sent8: if that something is histological but it does not campaign is false then the fact that it does deceive aldose is not wrong. sent9: the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false. sent10: that the flutist does not campaign and is not histological is false.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the horsewhip does deceive aldose. ; $context$ = sent1: something deceives aldose if it is canonist. sent2: the fact that the flutist is not profound is right if it is histological. sent3: the muslin is not a kind of an excerpt if that it does not deceive vamp and is not a valency is not correct. sent4: that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is wrong. sent5: that the horsewhip is profound but it is not a canonist is incorrect if the flutist is not profound. sent6: the flutist is a kind of a canonist if that it campaigns and it is not profound is not right. sent7: if the flutist is not profound then that the horsewhip is profound and it is a canonist is incorrect. sent8: if that something is histological but it does not campaign is false then the fact that it does deceive aldose is not wrong. sent9: the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false. sent10: that the flutist does not campaign and is not histological is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not a kind of a campaigning and it is not histological is false.

The flutist is not profound if the fact that it is not campaigning is false.

that the horsewhip is profound but it is not a canonist is incorrect if the flutist is not profound.

the fact that if the laddering Jeffersonian happens the laddering administration occurs does not hold.

sent1: the cross-fertilization occurs. sent2: the deceiving winnings occurs if the antiquing Mensa occurs. sent3: the fact that the laddering fiddlehead occurs is not wrong. sent4: the deceiving finisher happens if the anamnesticness happens. sent5: the laddering coaxing happens if the demonstration occurs. sent6: the fact that the arousing occurs hold. sent7: the laddering earphone occurs. sent8: that the laddering tamoxifen does not occur is prevented by the laddering Jeffersonian. sent9: the laddering administration occurs if the laddering tamoxifen occurs. sent10: if the heritage happens the rainstorm occurs. sent11: that the Hindustani happens is caused by the obedience. sent12: the fact that the lunisolarness occurs hold. sent13: if the inboardness happens then the deceiving zizz happens. sent14: if the ankyloticness occurs then the cackling occurs. sent15: if the Balzacianness happens then the lunisolarness occurs. sent16: the securing occurs if the metalwork happens. sent17: that the deceiving Quoratean happens leads to the plow. sent18: that the opening occurs brings about that the pregnantness happens. sent19: the pigging happens. sent20: the antiquing synchrotron happens.

¬({A} -> {C})

sent1: {BP} sent2: {L} -> {FU} sent3: {JH} sent4: {DQ} -> {IK} sent5: {AT} -> {FA} sent6: {CR} sent7: {CT} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: {BM} -> {HD} sent11: {HT} -> {CU} sent12: {IL} sent13: {AU} -> {DB} sent14: {GA} -> {DA} sent15: {CA} -> {IL} sent16: {AJ} -> {HP} sent17: {K} -> {HS} sent18: {CH} -> {FS} sent19: {HU} sent20: {HM}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the laddering Jeffersonian happens the laddering administration occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the cross-fertilization occurs. sent2: the deceiving winnings occurs if the antiquing Mensa occurs. sent3: the fact that the laddering fiddlehead occurs is not wrong. sent4: the deceiving finisher happens if the anamnesticness happens. sent5: the laddering coaxing happens if the demonstration occurs. sent6: the fact that the arousing occurs hold. sent7: the laddering earphone occurs. sent8: that the laddering tamoxifen does not occur is prevented by the laddering Jeffersonian. sent9: the laddering administration occurs if the laddering tamoxifen occurs. sent10: if the heritage happens the rainstorm occurs. sent11: that the Hindustani happens is caused by the obedience. sent12: the fact that the lunisolarness occurs hold. sent13: if the inboardness happens then the deceiving zizz happens. sent14: if the ankyloticness occurs then the cackling occurs. sent15: if the Balzacianness happens then the lunisolarness occurs. sent16: the securing occurs if the metalwork happens. sent17: that the deceiving Quoratean happens leads to the plow. sent18: that the opening occurs brings about that the pregnantness happens. sent19: the pigging happens. sent20: the antiquing synchrotron happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the laddering Jeffersonian occurs.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the laddering tamoxifen happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the laddering administration happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the laddering tamoxifen does not occur is prevented by the laddering Jeffersonian.

that the laddering tamoxifen does not occur is prevented by the laddering Jeffersonian.

the laddering administration occurs if the laddering tamoxifen occurs.

the pansexual is hymenal.

sent1: the ejector is a hypercatalectic or it is not a dentition or both. sent2: the ejector is asphaltic and/or it is not a dentition if the pansexual is a UNIX. sent3: that the set-back is either hymenal or a hypercatalectic or both is not correct if the panda is not a half-length. sent4: something is not a deossification if the fact that it is hymenal and/or a hypercatalectic does not hold. sent5: if the set-back is not a deossification the pansexual is a belt and is a UNIX. sent6: if something that is a belt is a kind of a deossification the pansexual is hymenal. sent7: something is not a UNIX. sent8: the ejector is a deossification if it either is a kind of a hypercatalectic or is not a dentition or both.

{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ejector is either not non-asphaltic or not a dentition or both.

({IM}{a} v ¬{E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pansexual is hymenal. ; $context$ = sent1: the ejector is a hypercatalectic or it is not a dentition or both. sent2: the ejector is asphaltic and/or it is not a dentition if the pansexual is a UNIX. sent3: that the set-back is either hymenal or a hypercatalectic or both is not correct if the panda is not a half-length. sent4: something is not a deossification if the fact that it is hymenal and/or a hypercatalectic does not hold. sent5: if the set-back is not a deossification the pansexual is a belt and is a UNIX. sent6: if something that is a belt is a kind of a deossification the pansexual is hymenal. sent7: something is not a UNIX. sent8: the ejector is a deossification if it either is a kind of a hypercatalectic or is not a dentition or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ejector is a deossification if it either is a kind of a hypercatalectic or is not a dentition or both.

the ejector is a deossification if it either is a kind of a hypercatalectic or is not a dentition or both.

the ejector is a hypercatalectic or it is not a dentition or both.

the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs.

sent1: if that the trip does not occur is not incorrect that both the vaudeville and the resurfacing occurs is not true. sent2: if the laddering hairnet does not occur then that both the chancroidalness and the conquerableness occurs is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs is incorrect if the trip does not occur. sent4: the minorness triggers that the vaudeville happens and the tripping does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the vaudeville happens and the resurfacing happens hold does not hold. sent6: if the gift does not occur that the redress happens but the antiquing microgliacyte does not occur is not correct. sent7: not the resurfacing but the affectation happens if the ether does not occur. sent8: the tripping does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: ¬{DH} -> ¬({IN} & {IC}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: {F} -> ({AA} & ¬{A}) sent5: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{FM} -> ¬({FP} & ¬{HK}) sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{AB} & {B}) sent8: ¬{A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the trip does not occur is not incorrect that both the vaudeville and the resurfacing occurs is not true. sent2: if the laddering hairnet does not occur then that both the chancroidalness and the conquerableness occurs is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs is incorrect if the trip does not occur. sent4: the minorness triggers that the vaudeville happens and the tripping does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the vaudeville happens and the resurfacing happens hold does not hold. sent6: if the gift does not occur that the redress happens but the antiquing microgliacyte does not occur is not correct. sent7: not the resurfacing but the affectation happens if the ether does not occur. sent8: the tripping does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs is incorrect if the trip does not occur.

the fact that the vaudeville but not the resurfacing occurs is incorrect if the trip does not occur.

the tripping does not occur.

there is something such that it is not an acoustic.

sent1: if something is not a Walton it is not a kind of a thysanuron and/or it is not a mainstreamed. sent2: the Iranian is a castle. sent3: the West-sider is not a kind of a Zapodidae. sent4: the microgliacyte is not a Zapodidae. sent5: if that something is a heartlessness but it is not ulcerative is false it is not a heartlessness. sent6: the ski-plane is not a Zapodidae if there exists something such that it is both not a heartlessness and an acoustic. sent7: if the fact that something is both a Hexanchidae and a heartlessness does not hold it is not a heartlessness. sent8: that there are non-Congolese things hold. sent9: there is something such that it is an acoustic. sent10: that the Chianti is not a quickness and is a kind of a Walton is incorrect. sent11: that the punter is not a Walton is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a quickness and it is a kind of a Walton is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it is a driveway. sent13: if there exists something such that it is not a heartlessness then that the West-sider is a Hexanchidae and is a heartlessness does not hold. sent14: the fact that the Iranian is a kind of a heartlessness and is not ulcerative is incorrect if it does castle.

(Ex): ¬{B}x

sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x v ¬{E}x) sent2: {I}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{o} sent5: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{cu} sent7: (x): ¬({G}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: (Ex): ¬{JE}x sent9: (Ex): {B}x sent10: ¬(¬{J}{d} & {F}{d}) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent12: (Ex): {FF}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({G}{a} & {C}{a}) sent14: {I}{b} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{H}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ski-plane is not a Zapodidae.

¬{A}{cu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not an acoustic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Walton it is not a kind of a thysanuron and/or it is not a mainstreamed. sent2: the Iranian is a castle. sent3: the West-sider is not a kind of a Zapodidae. sent4: the microgliacyte is not a Zapodidae. sent5: if that something is a heartlessness but it is not ulcerative is false it is not a heartlessness. sent6: the ski-plane is not a Zapodidae if there exists something such that it is both not a heartlessness and an acoustic. sent7: if the fact that something is both a Hexanchidae and a heartlessness does not hold it is not a heartlessness. sent8: that there are non-Congolese things hold. sent9: there is something such that it is an acoustic. sent10: that the Chianti is not a quickness and is a kind of a Walton is incorrect. sent11: that the punter is not a Walton is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a quickness and it is a kind of a Walton is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it is a driveway. sent13: if there exists something such that it is not a heartlessness then that the West-sider is a Hexanchidae and is a heartlessness does not hold. sent14: the fact that the Iranian is a kind of a heartlessness and is not ulcerative is incorrect if it does castle. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if there exists something such that it is not a heartlessness then that the West-sider is a Hexanchidae and is a heartlessness does not hold.

if there exists something such that it is not a heartlessness then that the West-sider is a Hexanchidae and is a heartlessness does not hold.

the West-sider is not a kind of a Zapodidae.

the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine.

sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak.

({F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({DK}x & {HH}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FE}x sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent4: {G}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent8: ¬{I}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{FP}x sent12: {DR}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that that the pseudoephedrine is a kind of a puerperium that does deceive pseudoephedrine is incorrect hold.

¬({F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a deviousness.

There is something that is not devious.

if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect.

the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine.

sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak.

({F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({DK}x & {HH}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FE}x sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent4: {G}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent8: ¬{I}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{FP}x sent12: {DR}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that that the pseudoephedrine is a kind of a puerperium that does deceive pseudoephedrine is incorrect hold.

¬({F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a deviousness.

There is a thing that is not devious.

if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum.

the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine.

sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak.

({F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({DK}x & {HH}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FE}x sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent4: {G}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent8: ¬{I}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{FP}x sent12: {DR}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that that the pseudoephedrine is a kind of a puerperium that does deceive pseudoephedrine is incorrect hold.

¬({F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a deviousness.

It is not a deviousness that exists.

something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum.

the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine.

sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak.

({F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({DK}x & {HH}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FE}x sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent4: {G}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent8: ¬{I}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{FP}x sent12: {DR}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that that the pseudoephedrine is a kind of a puerperium that does deceive pseudoephedrine is incorrect hold.

¬({F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a deviousness.

There is something that isn't devious.

if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct.

the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine.

sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak.

({F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({DK}x & {HH}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FE}x sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent4: {G}{a} sent5: ¬{I}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent8: ¬{I}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{FP}x sent12: {DR}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that that the pseudoephedrine is a kind of a puerperium that does deceive pseudoephedrine is incorrect hold.

¬({F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and deceives pseudoephedrine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a waybill that does antique yobibit. sent2: there is something such that it is not a brood. sent3: that the pseudoephedrine is a puerperium and it does deceive pseudoephedrine is not right if that the lagomorph is not a deviousness is not false. sent4: that the pseudoephedrine is operationalist is not incorrect. sent5: the lagomorph is not a vernier. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a deviousness then that the pseudoephedrine is not surgical but painful is incorrect. sent7: something does deceive pseudoephedrine if it is a Aplectrum. sent8: if the lagomorph is not a vernier that it is a flats and it is operationalist is not correct. sent9: if the fact that something is not surgical and is not painless does not hold it is a Aplectrum. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a deviousness. sent11: there is something such that it does not frame. sent12: the lagomorph is a kayak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a deviousness.

There is something that is not a deviousness.

the lagomorph is not a vernier.

the mallow is cautious or it is not Scandinavian or both.

sent1: if the fact that the mallow is a exteroceptor is true either the hominy is a exteroceptor or it is not cautious or both. sent2: if something is a kind of a calibration but it is not cautious it is a kind of a Scandinavian. sent3: something is runic if it is an umbrage and it does not subtilize. sent4: the hominy is a exteroceptor if it is cautious thing that is Scandinavian. sent5: if the hominy is a calibration the fact that the mallow is a calibration and/or it is not cautious is right. sent6: the hominy is a kind of a seckel but it is not a Keaton. sent7: if the mallow is Scandinavian then the hominy is Scandinavian or it is a exteroceptor or both. sent8: if the hominy is cautious either the mallow is cautious or it is not a Scandinavian or both. sent9: the mallow is not a filovirus. sent10: the mallow is a kind of a calibration and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent11: if the hominy is Scandinavian then the mallow is a kind of a Scandinavian and/or it is not a exteroceptor. sent12: the hominy is Scandinavian. sent13: something that is both not incautious and not Scandinavian is a kind of a calibration. sent14: something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious. sent15: the hominy is both a exteroceptor and not a calibration. sent16: if a calibration is not a Scandinavian then it is cautious. sent17: if something is both a calibration and cautious then it is a Scandinavian. sent18: the mallow is a exteroceptor and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent19: the hominy does antique hominy if it is a Scandinavian and it deceives homosexuality. sent20: if the mallow is a exteroceptor that is a calibration it is Scandinavian. sent21: if something is cautious but it is not Scandinavian it is a exteroceptor.

({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a})

sent1: {AA}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) sent2: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: (x): ({IS}x & ¬{GE}x) -> {CP}x sent4: ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent5: {AB}{aa} -> ({AB}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent6: ({EU}{aa} & ¬{HP}{aa}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ({A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) sent8: {B}{aa} -> ({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent9: ¬{CF}{a} sent10: ({AB}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) sent12: {A}{aa} sent13: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AB}x sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x sent17: (x): ({AB}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent18: ({AA}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent19: ({A}{aa} & {GM}{aa}) -> {AL}{aa} sent20: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent21: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AA}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the mallow is cautious or it is not Scandinavian or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the mallow is a exteroceptor is true either the hominy is a exteroceptor or it is not cautious or both. sent2: if something is a kind of a calibration but it is not cautious it is a kind of a Scandinavian. sent3: something is runic if it is an umbrage and it does not subtilize. sent4: the hominy is a exteroceptor if it is cautious thing that is Scandinavian. sent5: if the hominy is a calibration the fact that the mallow is a calibration and/or it is not cautious is right. sent6: the hominy is a kind of a seckel but it is not a Keaton. sent7: if the mallow is Scandinavian then the hominy is Scandinavian or it is a exteroceptor or both. sent8: if the hominy is cautious either the mallow is cautious or it is not a Scandinavian or both. sent9: the mallow is not a filovirus. sent10: the mallow is a kind of a calibration and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent11: if the hominy is Scandinavian then the mallow is a kind of a Scandinavian and/or it is not a exteroceptor. sent12: the hominy is Scandinavian. sent13: something that is both not incautious and not Scandinavian is a kind of a calibration. sent14: something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious. sent15: the hominy is both a exteroceptor and not a calibration. sent16: if a calibration is not a Scandinavian then it is cautious. sent17: if something is both a calibration and cautious then it is a Scandinavian. sent18: the mallow is a exteroceptor and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent19: the hominy does antique hominy if it is a Scandinavian and it deceives homosexuality. sent20: if the mallow is a exteroceptor that is a calibration it is Scandinavian. sent21: if something is cautious but it is not Scandinavian it is a exteroceptor. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: if the hominy is a exteroceptor but not a calibration it is cautious.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the hominy is cautious.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious.

Something that is not a kind of calibration is cautious.

the hominy is both a exteroceptor and not a calibration.

the mallow is cautious or it is not Scandinavian or both.

sent1: if the fact that the mallow is a exteroceptor is true either the hominy is a exteroceptor or it is not cautious or both. sent2: if something is a kind of a calibration but it is not cautious it is a kind of a Scandinavian. sent3: something is runic if it is an umbrage and it does not subtilize. sent4: the hominy is a exteroceptor if it is cautious thing that is Scandinavian. sent5: if the hominy is a calibration the fact that the mallow is a calibration and/or it is not cautious is right. sent6: the hominy is a kind of a seckel but it is not a Keaton. sent7: if the mallow is Scandinavian then the hominy is Scandinavian or it is a exteroceptor or both. sent8: if the hominy is cautious either the mallow is cautious or it is not a Scandinavian or both. sent9: the mallow is not a filovirus. sent10: the mallow is a kind of a calibration and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent11: if the hominy is Scandinavian then the mallow is a kind of a Scandinavian and/or it is not a exteroceptor. sent12: the hominy is Scandinavian. sent13: something that is both not incautious and not Scandinavian is a kind of a calibration. sent14: something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious. sent15: the hominy is both a exteroceptor and not a calibration. sent16: if a calibration is not a Scandinavian then it is cautious. sent17: if something is both a calibration and cautious then it is a Scandinavian. sent18: the mallow is a exteroceptor and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent19: the hominy does antique hominy if it is a Scandinavian and it deceives homosexuality. sent20: if the mallow is a exteroceptor that is a calibration it is Scandinavian. sent21: if something is cautious but it is not Scandinavian it is a exteroceptor.

({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a})

sent1: {AA}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) sent2: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: (x): ({IS}x & ¬{GE}x) -> {CP}x sent4: ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent5: {AB}{aa} -> ({AB}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent6: ({EU}{aa} & ¬{HP}{aa}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ({A}{aa} v {AA}{aa}) sent8: {B}{aa} -> ({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent9: ¬{CF}{a} sent10: ({AB}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) sent12: {A}{aa} sent13: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AB}x sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x sent17: (x): ({AB}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent18: ({AA}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent19: ({A}{aa} & {GM}{aa}) -> {AL}{aa} sent20: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent21: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AA}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the mallow is cautious or it is not Scandinavian or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the mallow is a exteroceptor is true either the hominy is a exteroceptor or it is not cautious or both. sent2: if something is a kind of a calibration but it is not cautious it is a kind of a Scandinavian. sent3: something is runic if it is an umbrage and it does not subtilize. sent4: the hominy is a exteroceptor if it is cautious thing that is Scandinavian. sent5: if the hominy is a calibration the fact that the mallow is a calibration and/or it is not cautious is right. sent6: the hominy is a kind of a seckel but it is not a Keaton. sent7: if the mallow is Scandinavian then the hominy is Scandinavian or it is a exteroceptor or both. sent8: if the hominy is cautious either the mallow is cautious or it is not a Scandinavian or both. sent9: the mallow is not a filovirus. sent10: the mallow is a kind of a calibration and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent11: if the hominy is Scandinavian then the mallow is a kind of a Scandinavian and/or it is not a exteroceptor. sent12: the hominy is Scandinavian. sent13: something that is both not incautious and not Scandinavian is a kind of a calibration. sent14: something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious. sent15: the hominy is both a exteroceptor and not a calibration. sent16: if a calibration is not a Scandinavian then it is cautious. sent17: if something is both a calibration and cautious then it is a Scandinavian. sent18: the mallow is a exteroceptor and/or it is not a Scandinavian. sent19: the hominy does antique hominy if it is a Scandinavian and it deceives homosexuality. sent20: if the mallow is a exteroceptor that is a calibration it is Scandinavian. sent21: if something is cautious but it is not Scandinavian it is a exteroceptor. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: if the hominy is a exteroceptor but not a calibration it is cautious.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the hominy is cautious.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that is a exteroceptor that is not a kind of a calibration is cautious.

There is something that is not a kind of calibration.

if the hominy is cautious either the mallow is cautious or it is not a Scandinavian or both.

there is something such that if it is not a Steiner then it is both not a sucrose and not Prakritic.

sent1: there exists something such that if it does not deceive federalism then it is not a kind of a carpenter. sent2: something is not a detritus and not downstream if it swans. sent3: there is something such that if it is not unemployable then it is not heedful and it is not a Boyle. sent4: if the sexton does not antique mandrake then it is not a Crocodylidae. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose and it is Prakritic. sent6: if something does antique sexton then it is not a dune and it does not antique synchrotron. sent7: something does not ladder tranylcypromine but it does chat Scottie if it does not chat Rankine. sent8: something is not a oilstone and is not a claustrum if it is Mancunian. sent9: something does not chat Scottie and does not deceive bunsen if it is not substantival. sent10: there is something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose. sent11: that the boysenberry is not a sucrose but it is Prakritic hold if it is not a Steiner. sent12: if the fact that the boysenberry is a Steiner is right then it is not a sucrose and it is not Prakritic. sent13: that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Steiner then it is not a sucrose and it is not Prakritic hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner then it is a kind of a sucrose that is not Prakritic. sent15: there is something such that if it is a deductible then it is non-intralobular thing that does not deceive nineteenth.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬{HS}x -> ¬{H}x sent2: (x): {CF}x -> (¬{AO}x & ¬{IG}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{DQ}x -> (¬{FA}x & ¬{FI}x) sent4: ¬{GO}{bl} -> ¬{ES}{bl} sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): {BH}x -> (¬{CT}x & ¬{FP}x) sent7: (x): ¬{HF}x -> (¬{FL}x & {IJ}x) sent8: (x): {AE}x -> (¬{DC}x & ¬{K}x) sent9: (x): ¬{CQ}x -> (¬{IJ}x & ¬{HT}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: (Ex): {FN}x -> (¬{IU}x & ¬{BE}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that if it is not substantival it does not chat Scottie and does not deceive bunsen.

(Ex): ¬{CQ}x -> (¬{IJ}x & ¬{HT}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a Steiner then it is both not a sucrose and not Prakritic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does not deceive federalism then it is not a kind of a carpenter. sent2: something is not a detritus and not downstream if it swans. sent3: there is something such that if it is not unemployable then it is not heedful and it is not a Boyle. sent4: if the sexton does not antique mandrake then it is not a Crocodylidae. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose and it is Prakritic. sent6: if something does antique sexton then it is not a dune and it does not antique synchrotron. sent7: something does not ladder tranylcypromine but it does chat Scottie if it does not chat Rankine. sent8: something is not a oilstone and is not a claustrum if it is Mancunian. sent9: something does not chat Scottie and does not deceive bunsen if it is not substantival. sent10: there is something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose. sent11: that the boysenberry is not a sucrose but it is Prakritic hold if it is not a Steiner. sent12: if the fact that the boysenberry is a Steiner is right then it is not a sucrose and it is not Prakritic. sent13: that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Steiner then it is not a sucrose and it is not Prakritic hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner then it is a kind of a sucrose that is not Prakritic. sent15: there is something such that if it is a deductible then it is non-intralobular thing that does not deceive nineteenth. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose and it is Prakritic.

there exists something such that if it is not a Steiner it is not a sucrose and it is Prakritic.

something is not a oilstone and is not a claustrum if it is Mancunian.

the mesa does not disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee.

sent1: the mesa is a kind of a Poncirus. sent2: the mesa does disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee if it is androgynous. sent3: the pronucleus is androgynous. sent4: the mesa freeze-dries freewheeler. sent5: the mesa is not non-androgynous. sent6: if something is apteral it disrupts cuckoo-bumblebee. sent7: the fence is a seagrass if it completes. sent8: something is androgynous if it disrupts cuckoo-bumblebee.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: {DJ}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: {A}{je} sent4: {JI}{a} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent7: {HC}{gg} -> {EO}{gg} sent8: (x): {B}x -> {A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the sequencer is not non-androgynous is not false.

{A}{fq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mesa does not disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee. ; $context$ = sent1: the mesa is a kind of a Poncirus. sent2: the mesa does disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee if it is androgynous. sent3: the pronucleus is androgynous. sent4: the mesa freeze-dries freewheeler. sent5: the mesa is not non-androgynous. sent6: if something is apteral it disrupts cuckoo-bumblebee. sent7: the fence is a seagrass if it completes. sent8: something is androgynous if it disrupts cuckoo-bumblebee. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mesa does disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee if it is androgynous.

the mesa does disrupt cuckoo-bumblebee if it is androgynous.

the mesa is not non-androgynous.

the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite.

¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {B}x sent2: (Ex): ({FR}x & {BC}x) sent3: (x): ({D}x & {AF}x) -> ¬{HG}{dc} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: (Ex): ({HC}x & {GL}x) sent12: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{CP}x -> ¬(¬{EO}x & {EJ}x) sent14: (x): {A}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent15: ¬{C}{fc} sent16: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent17: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent19: ¬{HA}{cf} -> ¬(¬{HE}{cf} & {DM}{cf})

PROVED

PROVED

the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul.

(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the pomade is not fewer.; sent4 -> int2: if the pomade is not fewer then it does not opacify Masoud.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pomade does not opacify Masoud.; sent18 -> int4: that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul is false if it does not opacify Masoud.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew.

It does freeze-dry Kendrew.

if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer.

the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite.

¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {B}x sent2: (Ex): ({FR}x & {BC}x) sent3: (x): ({D}x & {AF}x) -> ¬{HG}{dc} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: (Ex): ({HC}x & {GL}x) sent12: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{CP}x -> ¬(¬{EO}x & {EJ}x) sent14: (x): {A}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent15: ¬{C}{fc} sent16: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent17: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent19: ¬{HA}{cf} -> ¬(¬{HE}{cf} & {DM}{cf})

PROVED

PROVED

the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul.

(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the pomade is not fewer.; sent4 -> int2: if the pomade is not fewer then it does not opacify Masoud.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pomade does not opacify Masoud.; sent18 -> int4: that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul is false if it does not opacify Masoud.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew.

There is something that does freeze-dry Kendrew.

something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer.

the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite.

¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {B}x sent2: (Ex): ({FR}x & {BC}x) sent3: (x): ({D}x & {AF}x) -> ¬{HG}{dc} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({F}x & {E}x) sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: (Ex): ({HC}x & {GL}x) sent12: ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{CP}x -> ¬(¬{EO}x & {EJ}x) sent14: (x): {A}x -> (¬{F}x & {E}x) sent15: ¬{C}{fc} sent16: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & {E}{a}) sent17: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) sent19: ¬{HA}{cf} -> ¬(¬{HE}{cf} & {DM}{cf})

PROVED

PROVED

the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul.

(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent2: something is vicinal and it is a lambert. sent3: if something that does opacify Masoud is residual the junction does not carol. sent4: something does not opacify Masoud if it is not fewer. sent5: if something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew the pomade is not fewer. sent6: the fact that something appreciates kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent7: something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew. sent8: if that something is cytolytic thing that is not Shuha is not right then it does not opacify Masoud. sent9: the fact that something is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent10: there is something such that it is unperceptive. sent11: there is something such that it does freeze-dry lucubration and it contracts. sent12: that that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and is a kind of a manul is not false is incorrect. sent13: if something is not a kind of a Inchon then that it is not a kind of an exception and it is a kind of a noticer is not right. sent14: if something is unperceptive it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul. sent15: the ledger is not fewer. sent16: the fact that the pomade does appreciate kilogram-meter and it is a manul does not hold if it does not opacify Masoud. sent17: if the fact that the pronucleus is fewer thing that does not freeze-dry Kendrew is incorrect that the pomade is unperceptive is right. sent18: if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold. sent19: that the prolamine is not purposeful but it is basidiomycetous is not true if it is not a wulfenite. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the pomade is not fewer.; sent4 -> int2: if the pomade is not fewer then it does not opacify Masoud.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pomade does not opacify Masoud.; sent18 -> int4: that the pomade does not appreciate kilogram-meter but it is a manul is false if it does not opacify Masoud.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is unperceptive and it does freeze-dry Kendrew.

Kendrew does freeze-dry when something is unperceptive.

if something does not opacify Masoud then the fact that it does not appreciate kilogram-meter and is a manul does not hold.

the scribe is not bacchantic.