Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the whippersnapper is not Ghanaian.

sent1: that the tamarin is not a Indriidae is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-small and non-estrous hold. sent3: if something is estrous that it is a kind of a re-formation and is not small is not true. sent4: the still is not a kind of a re-formation if something is a kind of a small that is not estrous. sent5: the whippersnapper is a kind of a small. sent6: the whippersnapper is Ghanaian if the still is a creator. sent7: if there is something such that it is a creator and not Ghanaian then the still is not a re-formation. sent8: there is something such that it is Ghanaian and it is not a creator. sent9: something does opacify freewheeler and it is a kind of a jongleur. sent10: if something is not a kind of a re-formation the fact that it is not a 1870s and it is not a creator is wrong. sent11: that something is a kind of a creator but it is not a re-formation is incorrect if it is not Ghanaian. sent12: there is something such that it is unambitious and freeze-dries opium. sent13: the fact that something is non-estrous thing that is not sculptural is false if it is not a kind of a Indriidae. sent14: the fact that the whippersnapper is Ghanaian is not incorrect if that the still is not a 1870s and it is not a kind of a creator does not hold. sent15: that something is not a kind of a 1870s and it is not Ghanaian is false if it is not a kind of a re-formation. sent16: that something is not a 1870s but it is a creator does not hold if it is not a kind of a re-formation. sent17: if the whippersnapper is not a re-formation that it is Ghanaian and it is not a creator is not right. sent18: the fact that the whippersnapper is not a creator but it is Ghanaian is wrong. sent19: the still is not estrous. sent20: something is a small and estrous. sent21: there exists something such that it freeze-dries Tunney and is not skeletal. sent22: that the whippersnapper is a re-formation but it is not Ghanaian does not hold.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: ¬{E}{c} sent2: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: {C}{a} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ({GG}x & {HU}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: (Ex): ({L}x & {CN}x) sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{B}x) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent18: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & {B}{a}) sent19: ¬{D}{aa} sent20: (Ex): ({C}x & {D}x) sent21: (Ex): ({CE}x & ¬{FG}x) sent22: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the whippersnapper is not Ghanaian.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whippersnapper is not Ghanaian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the tamarin is not a Indriidae is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is both not non-small and non-estrous hold. sent3: if something is estrous that it is a kind of a re-formation and is not small is not true. sent4: the still is not a kind of a re-formation if something is a kind of a small that is not estrous. sent5: the whippersnapper is a kind of a small. sent6: the whippersnapper is Ghanaian if the still is a creator. sent7: if there is something such that it is a creator and not Ghanaian then the still is not a re-formation. sent8: there is something such that it is Ghanaian and it is not a creator. sent9: something does opacify freewheeler and it is a kind of a jongleur. sent10: if something is not a kind of a re-formation the fact that it is not a 1870s and it is not a creator is wrong. sent11: that something is a kind of a creator but it is not a re-formation is incorrect if it is not Ghanaian. sent12: there is something such that it is unambitious and freeze-dries opium. sent13: the fact that something is non-estrous thing that is not sculptural is false if it is not a kind of a Indriidae. sent14: the fact that the whippersnapper is Ghanaian is not incorrect if that the still is not a 1870s and it is not a kind of a creator does not hold. sent15: that something is not a kind of a 1870s and it is not Ghanaian is false if it is not a kind of a re-formation. sent16: that something is not a 1870s but it is a creator does not hold if it is not a kind of a re-formation. sent17: if the whippersnapper is not a re-formation that it is Ghanaian and it is not a creator is not right. sent18: the fact that the whippersnapper is not a creator but it is Ghanaian is wrong. sent19: the still is not estrous. sent20: something is a small and estrous. sent21: there exists something such that it freeze-dries Tunney and is not skeletal. sent22: that the whippersnapper is a re-formation but it is not Ghanaian does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: that the still is not a 1870s and not a creator is not correct if it is not a re-formation.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the still is not a re-formation.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the still is not a 1870s and is not a creator is false.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is not a kind of a re-formation the fact that it is not a 1870s and it is not a creator is wrong.

The fact that it isn't a re-formation and isn't a creator is wrong.

the fact that the whippersnapper is Ghanaian is not incorrect if that the still is not a 1870s and it is not a kind of a creator does not hold.

the pig appreciates heterology and it does appreciate LH.

sent1: that the pig does not appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect if it freeze-dries alkyl. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not chaetal and it is not opisthognathous is not true then the junction is opisthognathous. sent3: that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic does not hold if it does freeze-dry alkyl. sent4: if the junction does opacify junction then that the diplomate is not planographic and/or does not freeze-dry alkyl hold. sent5: the pig does freeze-dry alkyl. sent6: the choker is a countershot. sent7: a opisthognathous thing opacifies junction. sent8: The alkyl does freeze-dry pig. sent9: the fact that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a Gwydion. sent11: if that something does not appreciate LH and is syncategorematic is incorrect then that it does appreciate LH hold. sent12: the pig is syncategorematic. sent13: if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH. sent14: if something is a countershot then the fact that it is not chaetal and not opisthognathous is not right. sent15: the pig is syncategorematic if that something is a Gwydion is true. sent16: if the coke does not appreciate heterology then the pig is syncategorematic or a Gwydion or both.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cornerback does appreciate LH.

{D}{cd}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pig appreciates heterology and it does appreciate LH. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pig does not appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect if it freeze-dries alkyl. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not chaetal and it is not opisthognathous is not true then the junction is opisthognathous. sent3: that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic does not hold if it does freeze-dry alkyl. sent4: if the junction does opacify junction then that the diplomate is not planographic and/or does not freeze-dry alkyl hold. sent5: the pig does freeze-dry alkyl. sent6: the choker is a countershot. sent7: a opisthognathous thing opacifies junction. sent8: The alkyl does freeze-dry pig. sent9: the fact that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a Gwydion. sent11: if that something does not appreciate LH and is syncategorematic is incorrect then that it does appreciate LH hold. sent12: the pig is syncategorematic. sent13: if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH. sent14: if something is a countershot then the fact that it is not chaetal and not opisthognathous is not right. sent15: the pig is syncategorematic if that something is a Gwydion is true. sent16: if the coke does not appreciate heterology then the pig is syncategorematic or a Gwydion or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH.

If it's true that something doesn't appreciate LH but it is planographic, then it does.

that the pig does not appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect if it freeze-dries alkyl.

the pig appreciates heterology and it does appreciate LH.

sent1: that the pig does not appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect if it freeze-dries alkyl. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not chaetal and it is not opisthognathous is not true then the junction is opisthognathous. sent3: that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic does not hold if it does freeze-dry alkyl. sent4: if the junction does opacify junction then that the diplomate is not planographic and/or does not freeze-dry alkyl hold. sent5: the pig does freeze-dry alkyl. sent6: the choker is a countershot. sent7: a opisthognathous thing opacifies junction. sent8: The alkyl does freeze-dry pig. sent9: the fact that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a Gwydion. sent11: if that something does not appreciate LH and is syncategorematic is incorrect then that it does appreciate LH hold. sent12: the pig is syncategorematic. sent13: if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH. sent14: if something is a countershot then the fact that it is not chaetal and not opisthognathous is not right. sent15: the pig is syncategorematic if that something is a Gwydion is true. sent16: if the coke does not appreciate heterology then the pig is syncategorematic or a Gwydion or both.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cornerback does appreciate LH.

{D}{cd}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pig appreciates heterology and it does appreciate LH. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pig does not appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect if it freeze-dries alkyl. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not chaetal and it is not opisthognathous is not true then the junction is opisthognathous. sent3: that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic does not hold if it does freeze-dry alkyl. sent4: if the junction does opacify junction then that the diplomate is not planographic and/or does not freeze-dry alkyl hold. sent5: the pig does freeze-dry alkyl. sent6: the choker is a countershot. sent7: a opisthognathous thing opacifies junction. sent8: The alkyl does freeze-dry pig. sent9: the fact that the pig does appreciate LH and is planographic is incorrect. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a Gwydion. sent11: if that something does not appreciate LH and is syncategorematic is incorrect then that it does appreciate LH hold. sent12: the pig is syncategorematic. sent13: if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH. sent14: if something is a countershot then the fact that it is not chaetal and not opisthognathous is not right. sent15: the pig is syncategorematic if that something is a Gwydion is true. sent16: if the coke does not appreciate heterology then the pig is syncategorematic or a Gwydion or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the fact that something does not appreciate LH but it is planographic is true is not true then it does appreciate LH.

If it's true that something doesn't appreciate LH but it is planographic, then it's true.

the pig does freeze-dry alkyl.

the injectableness does not occur.

sent1: the eccentricness leads to that the freeze-drying downpour occurs. sent2: that the injectableness occurs is prevented by that the exemption occurs and/or the subartesianness happens. sent3: the shining occurs. sent4: the non-epilepticness and the exemption happens if the fact that the subartesianness occurs is not false. sent5: the freeze-drying lead-in happens. sent6: the heedfulness happens if the opacifying gastroenterostomy happens. sent7: that the freeze-drying socage happens leads to the epileptic. sent8: the non-Africanness is brought about by that either the fertilization or the worseness or both happens. sent9: that that the subartesianness but not the exemption occurs is not false is not true if the swinging does not occur. sent10: the swing does not occur and the grabbing does not occur if the FIFO happens. sent11: the carboniferousness and/or that the presentation happens prevents that the appreciating braced happens. sent12: if the epileptic occurs then the exemption occurs. sent13: that the subartesianness occurs brings about the uninjectableness. sent14: the murine occurs. sent15: that the unsentness occurs brings about the appreciating aeration.

¬{E}

sent1: {EC} -> {AK} sent2: ({C} v {D}) -> ¬{E} sent3: {JH} sent4: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent5: {HA} sent6: {FH} -> {N} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: ({CR} v {FP}) -> ¬{HF} sent9: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent10: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent11: ({HB} v {CE}) -> ¬{FM} sent12: {B} -> {C} sent13: {D} -> ¬{E} sent14: {GG} sent15: {FK} -> {CT}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the injectableness happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the injectableness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the eccentricness leads to that the freeze-drying downpour occurs. sent2: that the injectableness occurs is prevented by that the exemption occurs and/or the subartesianness happens. sent3: the shining occurs. sent4: the non-epilepticness and the exemption happens if the fact that the subartesianness occurs is not false. sent5: the freeze-drying lead-in happens. sent6: the heedfulness happens if the opacifying gastroenterostomy happens. sent7: that the freeze-drying socage happens leads to the epileptic. sent8: the non-Africanness is brought about by that either the fertilization or the worseness or both happens. sent9: that that the subartesianness but not the exemption occurs is not false is not true if the swinging does not occur. sent10: the swing does not occur and the grabbing does not occur if the FIFO happens. sent11: the carboniferousness and/or that the presentation happens prevents that the appreciating braced happens. sent12: if the epileptic occurs then the exemption occurs. sent13: that the subartesianness occurs brings about the uninjectableness. sent14: the murine occurs. sent15: that the unsentness occurs brings about the appreciating aeration. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the murine occurs.

the murine occurs.

that the unsentness occurs brings about the appreciating aeration.

the heavenliness does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship happens is not true hold then the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent2: the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship occurs is not correct if the adroitness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the fact that the instructorship occurs and the negligence occurs is not true the instructorship does not occur. sent4: the erectingness occurs. sent5: the adroitness and the negligence occurs if the freeze-drying intentionality does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the faucalness does not occur is not incorrect then the ferrying and the non-true-falseness occurs. sent7: the fact that the instructorship occurs and the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur is wrong if the adroitness happens. sent8: the fact that the oticness but not the freeze-drying intentionality occurs is false if the statement does not occur. sent9: if that the ferry does not occur is true the true-falseness happens and the freeze-drying intentionality happens. sent10: both the non-diamagneticness and the non-heavenliness happens if the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent11: that the ferry and the non-true-falseness happens prevents the freeze-drying intentionality. sent12: if the opacifying bedside occurs the fact that the appreciating cross-examiner does not occur and the faucalness occurs is not correct. sent13: the agon does not occur. sent14: that the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur triggers that the opacifying waste happens and the heavenliness occurs. sent15: that the freeze-drying intentionality happens results in that the adroitness does not occur and the negligence does not occur. sent16: the ferrying does not occur if that the fact that not the appreciating cross-examiner but the faucalness happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent17: if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent3: ¬({C} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {AA} sent5: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent6: ¬{I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent7: {D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{CI} -> ¬({S} & ¬{F}) sent9: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent10: ¬{B} -> (¬{AG} & ¬{A}) sent11: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent12: {K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent13: ¬{AB} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({EB} & {A}) sent15: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent16: ¬(¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the opacifying waste happens.

{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heavenliness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship happens is not true hold then the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent2: the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship occurs is not correct if the adroitness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the fact that the instructorship occurs and the negligence occurs is not true the instructorship does not occur. sent4: the erectingness occurs. sent5: the adroitness and the negligence occurs if the freeze-drying intentionality does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the faucalness does not occur is not incorrect then the ferrying and the non-true-falseness occurs. sent7: the fact that the instructorship occurs and the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur is wrong if the adroitness happens. sent8: the fact that the oticness but not the freeze-drying intentionality occurs is false if the statement does not occur. sent9: if that the ferry does not occur is true the true-falseness happens and the freeze-drying intentionality happens. sent10: both the non-diamagneticness and the non-heavenliness happens if the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent11: that the ferry and the non-true-falseness happens prevents the freeze-drying intentionality. sent12: if the opacifying bedside occurs the fact that the appreciating cross-examiner does not occur and the faucalness occurs is not correct. sent13: the agon does not occur. sent14: that the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur triggers that the opacifying waste happens and the heavenliness occurs. sent15: that the freeze-drying intentionality happens results in that the adroitness does not occur and the negligence does not occur. sent16: the ferrying does not occur if that the fact that not the appreciating cross-examiner but the faucalness happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent17: if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the heavenliness does not occur is right.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: that the fact that the erectingness happens but the agon does not occur is not incorrect does not hold.; sent4 & sent13 -> int2: the erectingness happens and the agon does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold.

The fact that the agon does not occur is not true if the heavenliness does not occur.

the erectingness occurs.

the heavenliness does not occur.

sent1: if the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship happens is not true hold then the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent2: the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship occurs is not correct if the adroitness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the fact that the instructorship occurs and the negligence occurs is not true the instructorship does not occur. sent4: the erectingness occurs. sent5: the adroitness and the negligence occurs if the freeze-drying intentionality does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the faucalness does not occur is not incorrect then the ferrying and the non-true-falseness occurs. sent7: the fact that the instructorship occurs and the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur is wrong if the adroitness happens. sent8: the fact that the oticness but not the freeze-drying intentionality occurs is false if the statement does not occur. sent9: if that the ferry does not occur is true the true-falseness happens and the freeze-drying intentionality happens. sent10: both the non-diamagneticness and the non-heavenliness happens if the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent11: that the ferry and the non-true-falseness happens prevents the freeze-drying intentionality. sent12: if the opacifying bedside occurs the fact that the appreciating cross-examiner does not occur and the faucalness occurs is not correct. sent13: the agon does not occur. sent14: that the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur triggers that the opacifying waste happens and the heavenliness occurs. sent15: that the freeze-drying intentionality happens results in that the adroitness does not occur and the negligence does not occur. sent16: the ferrying does not occur if that the fact that not the appreciating cross-examiner but the faucalness happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent17: if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent3: ¬({C} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {AA} sent5: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent6: ¬{I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent7: {D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{CI} -> ¬({S} & ¬{F}) sent9: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent10: ¬{B} -> (¬{AG} & ¬{A}) sent11: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent12: {K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent13: ¬{AB} sent14: ¬{B} -> ({EB} & {A}) sent15: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent16: ¬(¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the opacifying waste happens.

{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heavenliness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship happens is not true hold then the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent2: the fact that that the opacifying Ascaridia but not the instructorship occurs is not correct if the adroitness does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the fact that the instructorship occurs and the negligence occurs is not true the instructorship does not occur. sent4: the erectingness occurs. sent5: the adroitness and the negligence occurs if the freeze-drying intentionality does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the faucalness does not occur is not incorrect then the ferrying and the non-true-falseness occurs. sent7: the fact that the instructorship occurs and the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur is wrong if the adroitness happens. sent8: the fact that the oticness but not the freeze-drying intentionality occurs is false if the statement does not occur. sent9: if that the ferry does not occur is true the true-falseness happens and the freeze-drying intentionality happens. sent10: both the non-diamagneticness and the non-heavenliness happens if the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur. sent11: that the ferry and the non-true-falseness happens prevents the freeze-drying intentionality. sent12: if the opacifying bedside occurs the fact that the appreciating cross-examiner does not occur and the faucalness occurs is not correct. sent13: the agon does not occur. sent14: that the opacifying Ascaridia does not occur triggers that the opacifying waste happens and the heavenliness occurs. sent15: that the freeze-drying intentionality happens results in that the adroitness does not occur and the negligence does not occur. sent16: the ferrying does not occur if that the fact that not the appreciating cross-examiner but the faucalness happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent17: if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the heavenliness does not occur is right.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: that the fact that the erectingness happens but the agon does not occur is not incorrect does not hold.; sent4 & sent13 -> int2: the erectingness happens and the agon does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the heavenliness does not occur the fact that that the erectingness occurs and the agon does not occur is not true hold.

It is not true that the agon does not occur if the heavenliness does not occur.

the agon does not occur.

the fluorine is monocotyledonous.

sent1: something opacifies neon if it is a wolf. sent2: the inactivation appreciates finiteness. sent3: if something does opacify neon then the fact that it does not appreciate finiteness and it is monocotyledonous does not hold. sent4: The finiteness appreciates inactivation. sent5: everything is a kind of a wolf that does opacify Mantispidae. sent6: the fact that the mainframe is a kind of an esquire and it does opacify fringed is wrong if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness. sent7: if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness then that the mainframe is an esquire that does not opacify fringed is not right.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fluorine is not monocotyledonous.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fluorine is monocotyledonous. ; $context$ = sent1: something opacifies neon if it is a wolf. sent2: the inactivation appreciates finiteness. sent3: if something does opacify neon then the fact that it does not appreciate finiteness and it is monocotyledonous does not hold. sent4: The finiteness appreciates inactivation. sent5: everything is a kind of a wolf that does opacify Mantispidae. sent6: the fact that the mainframe is a kind of an esquire and it does opacify fringed is wrong if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness. sent7: if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness then that the mainframe is an esquire that does not opacify fringed is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness then that the mainframe is an esquire that does not opacify fringed is not right.

if the inactivation does appreciate finiteness then that the mainframe is an esquire that does not opacify fringed is not right.

the inactivation appreciates finiteness.

the tribesman is both not paroxysmal and not an executioner.

sent1: the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice. sent2: if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness. sent3: the pleaser is a kind of an executioner if the brandysnap is an executioner. sent4: if the pleaser is an executioner then the promisee is a kind of an executioner. sent5: something is an executioner and paroxysmal if the fact that it does not appreciate tribesman hold. sent6: if the promisee is an executioner then the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness is false. sent7: if the promisee is not a Preakness then the fact that the tribesman is not paroxysmal and not an executioner is not true.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness does not hold.

¬(¬{HU}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tribesman is both not paroxysmal and not an executioner. ; $context$ = sent1: the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice. sent2: if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness. sent3: the pleaser is a kind of an executioner if the brandysnap is an executioner. sent4: if the pleaser is an executioner then the promisee is a kind of an executioner. sent5: something is an executioner and paroxysmal if the fact that it does not appreciate tribesman hold. sent6: if the promisee is an executioner then the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness is false. sent7: if the promisee is not a Preakness then the fact that the tribesman is not paroxysmal and not an executioner is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the promisee is not a Preakness.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness.

It is not incorrect if the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice.

the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice.

the tribesman is both not paroxysmal and not an executioner.

sent1: the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice. sent2: if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness. sent3: the pleaser is a kind of an executioner if the brandysnap is an executioner. sent4: if the pleaser is an executioner then the promisee is a kind of an executioner. sent5: something is an executioner and paroxysmal if the fact that it does not appreciate tribesman hold. sent6: if the promisee is an executioner then the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness is false. sent7: if the promisee is not a Preakness then the fact that the tribesman is not paroxysmal and not an executioner is not true.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness does not hold.

¬(¬{HU}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tribesman is both not paroxysmal and not an executioner. ; $context$ = sent1: the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice. sent2: if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness. sent3: the pleaser is a kind of an executioner if the brandysnap is an executioner. sent4: if the pleaser is an executioner then the promisee is a kind of an executioner. sent5: something is an executioner and paroxysmal if the fact that it does not appreciate tribesman hold. sent6: if the promisee is an executioner then the fact that the tribesman does not disrupt Mott and it is not a Preakness is false. sent7: if the promisee is not a Preakness then the fact that the tribesman is not paroxysmal and not an executioner is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the promisee is not a Preakness.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice is not incorrect it is not a Preakness.

It is not a Preakness if the promisee does opacify sandiness and it is a Nice.

if the promisee is not a Preakness then the fact that the tribesman is not paroxysmal and not an executioner is not true.

that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold.

sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the butter is a kind of arthrosporic thing that does appreciate synchronization is not wrong.

({HG}{ei} & {HL}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Armenian is indusial.; sent1 & sent7 -> int2: the Armenian is a cirque.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial.

The Armenia is not non-indusial if the antiviral is a Polo.

the antiviral is a Polo.

that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold.

sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the butter is a kind of arthrosporic thing that does appreciate synchronization is not wrong.

({HG}{ei} & {HL}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Armenian is indusial.; sent1 & sent7 -> int2: the Armenian is a cirque.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial.

The Armenia is non-indusial if the antiviral is a Polo.

the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong.

that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold.

sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the butter is a kind of arthrosporic thing that does appreciate synchronization is not wrong.

({HG}{ei} & {HL}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Armenian is indusial and it is a kind of a cirque does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Armenian is a cirque if that the sleepyhead is a kind of a merozoite or it is not tribal or both is wrong. sent2: if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial. sent3: something that is a merozoite is not a kind of a cirque and is not a Polo. sent4: the antiviral is a Polo. sent5: if the sleepyhead whirls it is a Polo. sent6: if the antiviral is not a Polo but it is arthrosporic the butter is arthrosporic. sent7: that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true. sent8: if the abstractionism does not appreciate Phocidae then the sleepyhead is both not a cirque and tribal. sent9: the Armenian is indusial if the fact that the antiviral is a Polo and/or not a merozoite does not hold. sent10: something that is not a cirque and is tribal is a merozoite. sent11: if the sleepyhead is a merozoite and it is a kind of a Polo then the antiviral is not a kind of a Polo. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Armenian is indusial.; sent1 & sent7 -> int2: the Armenian is a cirque.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the antiviral is a Polo the Armenian is not non-indusial.

The Armenian is not non-indusial if the antiviral is a Polo.

that the sleepyhead is a merozoite and/or is not tribal is not true.

the poisonberry is not a sociologist.

sent1: the octopus is not a sociologist if the fact that the poisonberry does not opacify Maputo is not wrong. sent2: the poisonberry is not a sociologist if that the octopus opacifies Maputo and it is cormous is wrong. sent3: if that the poisonberry is not cormous is right the octopus is not a sociologist. sent4: that the octopus does opacify Maputo and it is cormous is not true.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the poisonberry is not a sociologist. ; $context$ = sent1: the octopus is not a sociologist if the fact that the poisonberry does not opacify Maputo is not wrong. sent2: the poisonberry is not a sociologist if that the octopus opacifies Maputo and it is cormous is wrong. sent3: if that the poisonberry is not cormous is right the octopus is not a sociologist. sent4: that the octopus does opacify Maputo and it is cormous is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the poisonberry is not a sociologist if that the octopus opacifies Maputo and it is cormous is wrong.

the poisonberry is not a sociologist if that the octopus opacifies Maputo and it is cormous is wrong.

that the octopus does opacify Maputo and it is cormous is not true.

that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct.

sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the ageratum is not restrictive.

¬{AB}{gk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Nesselrode is not coherent and is restrictive is not right that it does appreciate floxuridine is correct.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong.

Floxuridine does not appreciate if it is not coherent and restrictive.

that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory.

that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct.

sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the ageratum is not restrictive.

¬{AB}{gk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Nesselrode is not coherent and is restrictive is not right that it does appreciate floxuridine is correct.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong.

Floxuridine is not a good thing if it is not coherent and restrictive.

the Nesselrode is not mediatory.

that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct.

sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the ageratum is not restrictive.

¬{AB}{gk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the langbeinite is a kind of a Explorer is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not correct if it is not mediatory. sent2: something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong. sent3: the fact that the langbeinite is not restrictive but it is a Explorer is incorrect. sent4: if the Nesselrode is not restrictive then it appreciates floxuridine. sent5: something is mediatory if it is omnidirectional. sent6: something is not restrictive if it appreciates floxuridine and it is not a kind of a Explorer. sent7: the ageratum does appreciate floxuridine but it is not a kind of a Explorer if the langbeinite is mediatory. sent8: if the langbeinite is a Brasilia but it is not omnidirectional it is not mediatory. sent9: the Nesselrode is not mediatory. sent10: the langbeinite is not a Explorer and it does not appreciate floxuridine if it is not mediatory. sent11: the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the Nesselrode is not coherent and is restrictive is not right that it does appreciate floxuridine is correct.; sent1 & sent9 -> int2: that the Nesselrode is not coherent but it is restrictive is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does appreciate floxuridine if the fact that it is not coherent and it is restrictive is wrong.

If it is not coherent and restrictive, then something does appreciate it.

the langbeinite is a Explorer if the Nesselrode does appreciate floxuridine.

the fact that the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens does not hold.

sent1: the episcopalness does not occur. sent2: the freeze-drying griddle does not occur if the practice does not occur. sent3: the absolute happens and the readjustment occurs. sent4: the irreplaceableness occurs. sent5: the fact that that the send-off does not occur and the apogamicness happens is not correct is right. sent6: if the articulation happens then the victory does not occur. sent7: if the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens then the fact that the articulation does not occur is correct. sent8: the amphoricness does not occur. sent9: if the articulation does not occur then the opacifying duplicator does not occur. sent10: the fact that both the victory and the disrupting cross-examiner occurs does not hold. sent11: that the non-unwomanliness and the scending occurs does not hold. sent12: the scrolling does not occur. sent13: the barbecuing does not occur if the appreciating pedestal does not occur and the rating happens. sent14: the appreciating garrulity occurs and the freeze-drying saline happens. sent15: that the lingering does not occur triggers that the appreciating Berlin does not occur. sent16: the eugenicness happens. sent17: the fact that the echoicness does not occur hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: ¬{HU} sent2: ¬{HC} -> ¬{CG} sent3: ({BU} & {GD}) sent4: {DR} sent5: ¬(¬{BI} & {GG}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{AA} sent7: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{HT} sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent10: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent11: ¬(¬{JK} & {BD}) sent12: ¬{O} sent13: (¬{BC} & {GI}) -> ¬{BJ} sent14: ({HB} & {FN}) sent15: ¬{JG} -> ¬{HK} sent16: {I} sent17: ¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

not the victory but the disrupting cross-examiner happens.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the episcopalness does not occur. sent2: the freeze-drying griddle does not occur if the practice does not occur. sent3: the absolute happens and the readjustment occurs. sent4: the irreplaceableness occurs. sent5: the fact that that the send-off does not occur and the apogamicness happens is not correct is right. sent6: if the articulation happens then the victory does not occur. sent7: if the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens then the fact that the articulation does not occur is correct. sent8: the amphoricness does not occur. sent9: if the articulation does not occur then the opacifying duplicator does not occur. sent10: the fact that both the victory and the disrupting cross-examiner occurs does not hold. sent11: that the non-unwomanliness and the scending occurs does not hold. sent12: the scrolling does not occur. sent13: the barbecuing does not occur if the appreciating pedestal does not occur and the rating happens. sent14: the appreciating garrulity occurs and the freeze-drying saline happens. sent15: that the lingering does not occur triggers that the appreciating Berlin does not occur. sent16: the eugenicness happens. sent17: the fact that the echoicness does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens then the fact that the articulation does not occur is correct.

if the victory does not occur but the disrupting cross-examiner happens then the fact that the articulation does not occur is correct.

if the articulation does not occur then the opacifying duplicator does not occur.

the attraction does not steal and it is not a kind of a Doppler.

sent1: the attraction is not a kind of a steal and is not a kind of a Doppler if the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent2: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant is false the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent3: the portwatcher is both not a spinach and not a Doppler if the attraction is not rationalist. sent4: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant that is rationalist is incorrect the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent5: there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist.

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the attraction does not steal and it is not a kind of a Doppler. ; $context$ = sent1: the attraction is not a kind of a steal and is not a kind of a Doppler if the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent2: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant is false the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent3: the portwatcher is both not a spinach and not a Doppler if the attraction is not rationalist. sent4: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant that is rationalist is incorrect the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent5: there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the Sabine is an emigrant and it is rationalist is wrong.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the portwatcher is not a kind of a spinach.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist.

There is no such thing as an emigrant and rationalist.

if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant that is rationalist is incorrect the portwatcher is not a spinach.

the attraction does not steal and it is not a kind of a Doppler.

sent1: the attraction is not a kind of a steal and is not a kind of a Doppler if the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent2: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant is false the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent3: the portwatcher is both not a spinach and not a Doppler if the attraction is not rationalist. sent4: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant that is rationalist is incorrect the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent5: there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist.

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the attraction does not steal and it is not a kind of a Doppler. ; $context$ = sent1: the attraction is not a kind of a steal and is not a kind of a Doppler if the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent2: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant is false the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent3: the portwatcher is both not a spinach and not a Doppler if the attraction is not rationalist. sent4: if the fact that the Sabine is an emigrant that is rationalist is incorrect the portwatcher is not a spinach. sent5: there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the Sabine is an emigrant and it is rationalist is wrong.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the portwatcher is not a kind of a spinach.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that is an emigrant and rationalist.

There isn't anything that is an emigrant and rationalist.

the attraction is not a kind of a steal and is not a kind of a Doppler if the portwatcher is not a spinach.

the annotator is a Wallace.

sent1: that the cesspool is a Wallace and it is incontinent does not hold if there is something such that it is not incontinent. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a radicle does opacify access the nitrobenzene freeze-dries orientalism. sent3: that something is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both does not hold if it does not appreciate foxhunt. sent4: if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace. sent5: if something is not a moralization the fact that it is both not a resumption and not a Wallace is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a fundamentalist. sent7: there exists something such that it is a kind of a amphidiploid. sent8: the fact that the detonator is not diligent and is not tannic does not hold if there is something such that it does freeze-dry orientalism. sent9: something is a Wallace if that either it is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both is not true. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not diligent and it is not tannic is not correct the bat is a depressive. sent11: something is not a kind of a radicle but it does opacify access. sent12: that the annotator is both a rehash and a fundamentalist is false if there is something such that it is not fundamentalist.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the jade does not rehash.

¬{AA}{du}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the annotator is a Wallace. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cesspool is a Wallace and it is incontinent does not hold if there is something such that it is not incontinent. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a radicle does opacify access the nitrobenzene freeze-dries orientalism. sent3: that something is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both does not hold if it does not appreciate foxhunt. sent4: if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace. sent5: if something is not a moralization the fact that it is both not a resumption and not a Wallace is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a fundamentalist. sent7: there exists something such that it is a kind of a amphidiploid. sent8: the fact that the detonator is not diligent and is not tannic does not hold if there is something such that it does freeze-dry orientalism. sent9: something is a Wallace if that either it is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both is not true. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not diligent and it is not tannic is not correct the bat is a depressive. sent11: something is not a kind of a radicle but it does opacify access. sent12: that the annotator is both a rehash and a fundamentalist is false if there is something such that it is not fundamentalist. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the annotator is not a kind of a Wallace if that it rehashes and is a fundamentalist does not hold.; sent6 & sent12 -> int2: that the annotator is a kind of a rehash and it is fundamentalist is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace.

It is not a Wallace if something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist.

there exists something such that it is not a fundamentalist.

the annotator is a Wallace.

sent1: that the cesspool is a Wallace and it is incontinent does not hold if there is something such that it is not incontinent. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a radicle does opacify access the nitrobenzene freeze-dries orientalism. sent3: that something is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both does not hold if it does not appreciate foxhunt. sent4: if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace. sent5: if something is not a moralization the fact that it is both not a resumption and not a Wallace is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a fundamentalist. sent7: there exists something such that it is a kind of a amphidiploid. sent8: the fact that the detonator is not diligent and is not tannic does not hold if there is something such that it does freeze-dry orientalism. sent9: something is a Wallace if that either it is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both is not true. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not diligent and it is not tannic is not correct the bat is a depressive. sent11: something is not a kind of a radicle but it does opacify access. sent12: that the annotator is both a rehash and a fundamentalist is false if there is something such that it is not fundamentalist.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the jade does not rehash.

¬{AA}{du}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the annotator is a Wallace. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cesspool is a Wallace and it is incontinent does not hold if there is something such that it is not incontinent. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a radicle does opacify access the nitrobenzene freeze-dries orientalism. sent3: that something is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both does not hold if it does not appreciate foxhunt. sent4: if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace. sent5: if something is not a moralization the fact that it is both not a resumption and not a Wallace is false. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a fundamentalist. sent7: there exists something such that it is a kind of a amphidiploid. sent8: the fact that the detonator is not diligent and is not tannic does not hold if there is something such that it does freeze-dry orientalism. sent9: something is a Wallace if that either it is not a moralization or it is not a resumption or both is not true. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not diligent and it is not tannic is not correct the bat is a depressive. sent11: something is not a kind of a radicle but it does opacify access. sent12: that the annotator is both a rehash and a fundamentalist is false if there is something such that it is not fundamentalist. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the annotator is not a kind of a Wallace if that it rehashes and is a fundamentalist does not hold.; sent6 & sent12 -> int2: that the annotator is a kind of a rehash and it is fundamentalist is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist does not hold it is not a Wallace.

It is not Wallace if something is a rehash and it is a fundamentalist.

that the annotator is both a rehash and a fundamentalist is false if there is something such that it is not fundamentalist.

the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens.

sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: ¬(¬{DL} & {BD}) -> {EG} sent2: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent3: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> {A} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬({CL} & {IA}) sent8: ({G} & {JC}) sent9: {I} -> {DC} sent10: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) -> {JE} sent11: {DN}

PROVED

PROVED

the IPO happens and the offertory happens.

({EM} & {JE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the appreciating Punic happens.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: the housebreaking occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right.

The freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right.

the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true.

the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens.

sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: ¬(¬{DL} & {BD}) -> {EG} sent2: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent3: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> {A} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬({CL} & {IA}) sent8: ({G} & {JC}) sent9: {I} -> {DC} sent10: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) -> {JE} sent11: {DN}

PROVED

PROVED

the IPO happens and the offertory happens.

({EM} & {JE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the appreciating Punic happens.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: the housebreaking occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right.

If the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs, it's not right.

if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs.

the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens.

sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: ¬(¬{DL} & {BD}) -> {EG} sent2: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent3: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: ¬(¬{C} & {D}) -> {A} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬({CL} & {IA}) sent8: ({G} & {JC}) sent9: {I} -> {DC} sent10: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{JE}) -> {JE} sent11: {DN}

PROVED

PROVED

the IPO happens and the offertory happens.

({EM} & {JE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housebreaking happens and the appreciating Punic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the lesson occurs if the fact that not the thyroidectomy but the tragedy occurs is not correct. sent2: the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold. sent3: the fact that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur is incorrect if the appreciating basinet happens. sent4: the fact that the freeze-drying impressed does not occur but the discomycetousness occurs is not true. sent5: if the fact that not the appreciating basinet but the niceness happens is wrong the housebreaking occurs. sent6: the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right. sent7: the fact that both the snookering and the ripeness occurs is wrong. sent8: the jabbing happens and the genitourinariness happens. sent9: the carposporicness occurs if the clonus happens. sent10: if that the appreciating Punic does not occur and the offertory does not occur does not hold the fact that the offertory occurs is true. sent11: the cenobiticness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the appreciating Punic happens.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: the housebreaking occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the appreciating Punic happens if that not the freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right.

The freeze-drying impressed but the discomycetousness occurs is not right for the appreciation of the Punic.

the fact that the appreciating basinet does not occur and the niceness occurs does not hold.

the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and it does not opacify appendaged.

sent1: the termer does not opacify appendaged if the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent2: something is odorous and it is a Emberizidae if it does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent3: the scholar does not appreciate Nasturtium if the fact that the meclizine rouges but it does not acclimatize is not true. sent4: if the scholar is not odorous but it is a Emberizidae the Rwandan is not odorous. sent5: the termer is a kind of a Emberizidae if the scholar appreciates Nasturtium. sent6: if the meclizine is multilingual the scholar is not odorous but a Emberizidae. sent7: the meclizine is a rouge that is multilingual if the lightweight does not acclimatize. sent8: the wolverine is not a kind of a Aristotelian. sent9: the Rwandan is not non-odorous. sent10: if the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium then that the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and it does not opacify appendaged hold. sent11: if the scholar is a Emberizidae the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent12: the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium if either the scholar is multilingual or it is a Emberizidae or both. sent13: if something is an embezzler then that it does not opacify tastebud and is not an antiaircraft is incorrect. sent14: that the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and does not opacify appendaged is incorrect if the Rwandan is not odorous. sent15: that the Rwandan does not opacify appendaged and is not multilingual is wrong if there exists something such that it is odorous. sent16: that something is harsh but it is not a sugarloaf is wrong if it does not embrown. sent17: if that something does not opacify tastebud and it is not an antiaircraft does not hold that it does not acclimatize is not wrong. sent18: if the termer is an antiaircraft then that the meclizine rouges and does not acclimatize is not correct. sent19: if that the lightweight is harsh thing that is not a sugarloaf does not hold it is an embezzler. sent20: the fact that the termer does not opacify appendaged is not incorrect. sent21: the termer does not opacify appendaged and is not odorous if the Rwandan does not opacify appendaged.

(¬{D}{d} & ¬{E}{d})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pub does opacify appendaged.

{E}{bf}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and it does not opacify appendaged. ; $context$ = sent1: the termer does not opacify appendaged if the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent2: something is odorous and it is a Emberizidae if it does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent3: the scholar does not appreciate Nasturtium if the fact that the meclizine rouges but it does not acclimatize is not true. sent4: if the scholar is not odorous but it is a Emberizidae the Rwandan is not odorous. sent5: the termer is a kind of a Emberizidae if the scholar appreciates Nasturtium. sent6: if the meclizine is multilingual the scholar is not odorous but a Emberizidae. sent7: the meclizine is a rouge that is multilingual if the lightweight does not acclimatize. sent8: the wolverine is not a kind of a Aristotelian. sent9: the Rwandan is not non-odorous. sent10: if the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium then that the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and it does not opacify appendaged hold. sent11: if the scholar is a Emberizidae the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium. sent12: the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium if either the scholar is multilingual or it is a Emberizidae or both. sent13: if something is an embezzler then that it does not opacify tastebud and is not an antiaircraft is incorrect. sent14: that the termer does not appreciate Nasturtium and does not opacify appendaged is incorrect if the Rwandan is not odorous. sent15: that the Rwandan does not opacify appendaged and is not multilingual is wrong if there exists something such that it is odorous. sent16: that something is harsh but it is not a sugarloaf is wrong if it does not embrown. sent17: if that something does not opacify tastebud and it is not an antiaircraft does not hold that it does not acclimatize is not wrong. sent18: if the termer is an antiaircraft then that the meclizine rouges and does not acclimatize is not correct. sent19: if that the lightweight is harsh thing that is not a sugarloaf does not hold it is an embezzler. sent20: the fact that the termer does not opacify appendaged is not incorrect. sent21: the termer does not opacify appendaged and is not odorous if the Rwandan does not opacify appendaged. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the scholar is a Emberizidae the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium.

if the scholar is a Emberizidae the meclizine does not appreciate Nasturtium.

the termer is a kind of a Emberizidae if the scholar appreciates Nasturtium.

there is something such that if it does not knead that it does voice and it is a plow does not hold.

sent1: something that does not knead is a kind of a voice that is a plow. sent2: if the gasmask does knead then the fact that it is a kind of a voice that does plow does not hold. sent3: the fact that something does appreciate chopstick and it does freeze-dry Mesocricetus is wrong if it does not freeze-dry Togo. sent4: if the gasmask does not ballot then it is not non-gnomic but a plow. sent5: there is something such that if it does not reconcile that it is a split and appreciates appetite is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a Hubel then the fact that it is a neptunium and not non-photoconductive does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the gasmask does not knead is true it does voice and it plows. sent8: if the gasmask is not a kind of a Seneca it is a kind of a phencyclidine and it is a decrepitude. sent9: there exists something such that if it does knead then that it is a voice and does plow is not correct. sent10: if the chopstick reconciles the fact that it is a kind of honest thing that does voice is incorrect. sent11: that something is propulsive and it is amnestic does not hold if it is not heavenly. sent12: the fact that the gasmask is not non-mousy and not variable is wrong if it does not opacify Cyclopterus. sent13: there is something such that if it is not periodontic it is concretistic and it appreciates Cercopithecus. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Regency then that it is lactic and it is sigmoid is incorrect. sent15: the fact that something voices and is a plow is incorrect if it kneads. sent16: there is something such that if it does not knead then it is a voice and is a plow.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬{BT}x -> ¬({BE}x & {FB}x) sent4: ¬{HF}{aa} -> ({HM}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{GP}x -> ¬({DH}x & {DB}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{JE}x -> ¬({R}x & {FM}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{GC}{aa} -> ({FD}{aa} & {CL}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {GP}{ep} -> ¬({IM}{ep} & {AA}{ep}) sent11: (x): ¬{CC}x -> ¬({FF}x & {DT}x) sent12: ¬{FA}{aa} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {BH}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{BJ}x -> ({AE}x & {BU}x) sent14: (Ex): {HI}x -> ¬({IO}x & {CA}x) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not knead that it does voice and it is a plow does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not knead is a kind of a voice that is a plow. sent2: if the gasmask does knead then the fact that it is a kind of a voice that does plow does not hold. sent3: the fact that something does appreciate chopstick and it does freeze-dry Mesocricetus is wrong if it does not freeze-dry Togo. sent4: if the gasmask does not ballot then it is not non-gnomic but a plow. sent5: there is something such that if it does not reconcile that it is a split and appreciates appetite is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a Hubel then the fact that it is a neptunium and not non-photoconductive does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the gasmask does not knead is true it does voice and it plows. sent8: if the gasmask is not a kind of a Seneca it is a kind of a phencyclidine and it is a decrepitude. sent9: there exists something such that if it does knead then that it is a voice and does plow is not correct. sent10: if the chopstick reconciles the fact that it is a kind of honest thing that does voice is incorrect. sent11: that something is propulsive and it is amnestic does not hold if it is not heavenly. sent12: the fact that the gasmask is not non-mousy and not variable is wrong if it does not opacify Cyclopterus. sent13: there is something such that if it is not periodontic it is concretistic and it appreciates Cercopithecus. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Regency then that it is lactic and it is sigmoid is incorrect. sent15: the fact that something voices and is a plow is incorrect if it kneads. sent16: there is something such that if it does not knead then it is a voice and is a plow. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it does not knead then it is a voice and is a plow.

there is something such that if it does not knead then it is a voice and is a plow.

if the fact that the gasmask does not knead is true it does voice and it plows.

the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true.

sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {C}{ii} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): (¬{IU}x & {DI}x) -> {AB}x sent6: (¬{AR}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: {B}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: {C}{aa} sent10: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {C}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

the counterterrorist is not a kind of a adiposity.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the bibliophile is a Buchner if it does not retain and it is a Leptodactylus.; sent10 & sent9 -> int2: the bibliophile does not retain and is a Leptodactylus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bibliophile is a kind of a Buchner.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner.

If something does not retain, it is a Buchner.

that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic.

the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true.

sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {C}{ii} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): (¬{IU}x & {DI}x) -> {AB}x sent6: (¬{AR}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: {B}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: {C}{aa} sent10: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {C}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

the counterterrorist is not a kind of a adiposity.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the bibliophile is a Buchner if it does not retain and it is a Leptodactylus.; sent10 & sent9 -> int2: the bibliophile does not retain and is a Leptodactylus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bibliophile is a kind of a Buchner.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner.

If something doesn't retain, it's a Buchner.

the bibliophile is metamorphic.

the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true.

sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {C}{ii} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (x): (¬{IU}x & {DI}x) -> {AB}x sent6: (¬{AR}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: {B}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: {C}{aa} sent10: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {C}{c})

PROVED

PROVED

the counterterrorist is not a kind of a adiposity.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the counterterrorist is a adiposity is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a adiposity that is a Buchner is false if it is not metamorphic. sent2: the iproclozide is metamorphic. sent3: if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner. sent4: the bibliophile does not retain if it is metamorphic. sent5: something is a Leptodactylus if it is not an avatar but a strike. sent6: the counterterrorist does not freeze-dry ladder but it does retain. sent7: if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity. sent8: the bibliophile does not retain. sent9: the bibliophile is metamorphic. sent10: that the bibliophile does not retain but it is a Leptodactylus is not wrong if it is metamorphic. sent11: if the brooklet is not neurotoxic then that it is a Brescia and it is metamorphic is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the bibliophile is a Buchner if it does not retain and it is a Leptodactylus.; sent10 & sent9 -> int2: the bibliophile does not retain and is a Leptodactylus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bibliophile is a kind of a Buchner.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does not retain and is a kind of a Leptodactylus it is a Buchner.

It is a kind of Leptodactylus if something does not retain.

if that the bibliophile is a Buchner hold then the counterterrorist is a adiposity.

the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold.

sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true.

¬((Ex): ({B}x & {A}x))

sent1: ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {D}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{BJ}{a}) sent6: (¬{B}{fa} & ¬{HK}{fa}) sent7: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: (Ex): {BT}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the heart does opacify psittacosaur hold.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the heart is biogenic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the heart is biogenic and opacifies psittacosaur.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold.

It is not an accolade but a maximal hold.

the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal.

the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold.

sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true.

¬((Ex): ({B}x & {A}x))

sent1: ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {D}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{BJ}{a}) sent6: (¬{B}{fa} & ¬{HK}{fa}) sent7: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: (Ex): {BT}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the heart does opacify psittacosaur hold.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the heart is biogenic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the heart is biogenic and opacifies psittacosaur.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold.

It is not an award but a maximal hold.

if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic.

the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold.

sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true.

¬((Ex): ({B}x & {A}x))

sent1: ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}{a} sent3: (Ex): {D}x sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{BJ}{a}) sent6: (¬{B}{fa} & ¬{HK}{fa}) sent7: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent10: (Ex): {BT}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is biogenic thing that opacifies psittacosaur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the heart is not a kind of a leech. sent2: if something that does not opacify psittacosaur does opacify joust that the heart is biogenic hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a leech hold. sent4: the heart does opacify psittacosaur if something is not an acclaim but it is maximal. sent5: the heart does not acclaim and it is not genic. sent6: the stethoscope is a kind of non-biogenic thing that does not opacify chou. sent7: the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech. sent8: the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold. sent9: if the heart does not opacify joust and it is not a leech then it is biogenic. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it opacifies studied is true. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the heart does opacify psittacosaur hold.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the heart is biogenic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the heart is biogenic and opacifies psittacosaur.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that it is not an acclaim but maximal hold.

It's not an accolade but a maximal hold.

the heart does not opacify joust and is not a leech.

the domination occurs.

sent1: the consummating happens. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: that the amnesicness occurs is true. sent4: the fishiness happens. sent5: the opacifying smashing happens. sent6: the appreciating Ascaridia occurs. sent7: if the fact that the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs is correct then the domination does not occur. sent8: the jamming does not occur. sent9: the opacifying smashing occurs and the domination occurs if the consummating does not occur.

{C}

sent1: {B} sent2: {IC} sent3: {AN} sent4: {BU} sent5: {A} sent6: {DF} sent7: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬{DA} sent9: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the domination happens is true.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the domination occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the consummating happens. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: that the amnesicness occurs is true. sent4: the fishiness happens. sent5: the opacifying smashing happens. sent6: the appreciating Ascaridia occurs. sent7: if the fact that the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs is correct then the domination does not occur. sent8: the jamming does not occur. sent9: the opacifying smashing occurs and the domination occurs if the consummating does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the opacifying smashing happens.

The smashing happens.

the consummating happens.

the domination occurs.

sent1: the consummating happens. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: that the amnesicness occurs is true. sent4: the fishiness happens. sent5: the opacifying smashing happens. sent6: the appreciating Ascaridia occurs. sent7: if the fact that the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs is correct then the domination does not occur. sent8: the jamming does not occur. sent9: the opacifying smashing occurs and the domination occurs if the consummating does not occur.

{C}

sent1: {B} sent2: {IC} sent3: {AN} sent4: {BU} sent5: {A} sent6: {DF} sent7: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬{DA} sent9: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the domination happens is true.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the domination occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the consummating happens. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: that the amnesicness occurs is true. sent4: the fishiness happens. sent5: the opacifying smashing happens. sent6: the appreciating Ascaridia occurs. sent7: if the fact that the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs is correct then the domination does not occur. sent8: the jamming does not occur. sent9: the opacifying smashing occurs and the domination occurs if the consummating does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the opacifying smashing happens.

There is an opacifying smashing.

if the fact that the opacifying smashing occurs and the consummating occurs is correct then the domination does not occur.

the aquamarine is ischemic.

sent1: the initiate is not inappropriate. sent2: the aquamarine does opacify Bolivian. sent3: the aquamarine is not inappropriate. sent4: something does opacify Bolivian if it is not inappropriate. sent5: if the aquamarine is not inappropriate it opacifies Bolivian. sent6: if that something is not inappropriate is right then it is ischemic and it does opacify Bolivian. sent7: if something is not a kind of a polypectomy then the fact that it is both inappropriate and a clubbing does not hold.

{AA}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the aquamarine is not ischemic.

¬{AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aquamarine is ischemic. ; $context$ = sent1: the initiate is not inappropriate. sent2: the aquamarine does opacify Bolivian. sent3: the aquamarine is not inappropriate. sent4: something does opacify Bolivian if it is not inappropriate. sent5: if the aquamarine is not inappropriate it opacifies Bolivian. sent6: if that something is not inappropriate is right then it is ischemic and it does opacify Bolivian. sent7: if something is not a kind of a polypectomy then the fact that it is both inappropriate and a clubbing does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the aquamarine is ischemic and it opacifies Bolivian if it is not inappropriate.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the aquamarine is ischemic and opacifies Bolivian.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not inappropriate is right then it is ischemic and it does opacify Bolivian.

if that something is not inappropriate is right then it is ischemic and it does opacify Bolivian.

the aquamarine is not inappropriate.

the fact that the frontiersman is a kind of cousinly thing that does not disrupt B is not correct.

sent1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity if something that is gregarious is a averageness. sent2: the brant is a rheumatism. sent3: the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly is true if something is not a secondary but it is a Plantation. sent4: if the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus then the contemporary is both residual and a cockfighting. sent5: the neopallium does not opacify complementarity if the contemporary is both not non-residual and a cockfighting. sent6: something opacifies harpoon if that it appreciates plowwright hold. sent7: something appreciates plowwright if it is a kind of a rheumatism. sent8: if the frontiersman is gregarious then the dartboard is brave. sent9: something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness. sent10: if the neopallium does not opacify complementarity then the dartboard is not a averageness and/or it is gregarious. sent11: if the dartboard opacifies complementarity then the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly and it does not disrupt B is not right. sent12: that something is not a kind of a secondary and is a Plantation hold if it does opacify harpoon. sent13: the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus.

¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the frontiersman is not uncousinly and does not disrupt B.

(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the frontiersman is a kind of cousinly thing that does not disrupt B is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity if something that is gregarious is a averageness. sent2: the brant is a rheumatism. sent3: the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly is true if something is not a secondary but it is a Plantation. sent4: if the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus then the contemporary is both residual and a cockfighting. sent5: the neopallium does not opacify complementarity if the contemporary is both not non-residual and a cockfighting. sent6: something opacifies harpoon if that it appreciates plowwright hold. sent7: something appreciates plowwright if it is a kind of a rheumatism. sent8: if the frontiersman is gregarious then the dartboard is brave. sent9: something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness. sent10: if the neopallium does not opacify complementarity then the dartboard is not a averageness and/or it is gregarious. sent11: if the dartboard opacifies complementarity then the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly and it does not disrupt B is not right. sent12: that something is not a kind of a secondary and is a Plantation hold if it does opacify harpoon. sent13: the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness.

It is a kind of averageness.

the dartboard does opacify complementarity if something that is gregarious is a averageness.

the fact that the frontiersman is a kind of cousinly thing that does not disrupt B is not correct.

sent1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity if something that is gregarious is a averageness. sent2: the brant is a rheumatism. sent3: the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly is true if something is not a secondary but it is a Plantation. sent4: if the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus then the contemporary is both residual and a cockfighting. sent5: the neopallium does not opacify complementarity if the contemporary is both not non-residual and a cockfighting. sent6: something opacifies harpoon if that it appreciates plowwright hold. sent7: something appreciates plowwright if it is a kind of a rheumatism. sent8: if the frontiersman is gregarious then the dartboard is brave. sent9: something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness. sent10: if the neopallium does not opacify complementarity then the dartboard is not a averageness and/or it is gregarious. sent11: if the dartboard opacifies complementarity then the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly and it does not disrupt B is not right. sent12: that something is not a kind of a secondary and is a Plantation hold if it does opacify harpoon. sent13: the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus.

¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the frontiersman is not uncousinly and does not disrupt B.

(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the frontiersman is a kind of cousinly thing that does not disrupt B is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity if something that is gregarious is a averageness. sent2: the brant is a rheumatism. sent3: the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly is true if something is not a secondary but it is a Plantation. sent4: if the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus then the contemporary is both residual and a cockfighting. sent5: the neopallium does not opacify complementarity if the contemporary is both not non-residual and a cockfighting. sent6: something opacifies harpoon if that it appreciates plowwright hold. sent7: something appreciates plowwright if it is a kind of a rheumatism. sent8: if the frontiersman is gregarious then the dartboard is brave. sent9: something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness. sent10: if the neopallium does not opacify complementarity then the dartboard is not a averageness and/or it is gregarious. sent11: if the dartboard opacifies complementarity then the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly and it does not disrupt B is not right. sent12: that something is not a kind of a secondary and is a Plantation hold if it does opacify harpoon. sent13: the mandate is not a kind of a Regulus. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the dartboard does opacify complementarity.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is gregarious and it is a kind of a averageness.

A kind of averageness is what something is.

if the dartboard opacifies complementarity then the fact that the frontiersman is not uncousinly and it does not disrupt B is not right.

the lanyard does opacify terminology.

sent1: if there is something such that it contends then the fact that the metazoan is not a scholarship hold. sent2: that something is not a Bairava and does not contend is not true if it opacifies terminology. sent3: the lanyard is a kind of a Juvenal and is not Philistine. sent4: if something contends it is a kind of a scholarship. sent5: the lanyard is a scholarship. sent6: if there exists something such that it does contend then the metazoan is a Bairava that is not a kind of a scholarship. sent7: the domino appreciates Bloomsbury but it is not a Bairava. sent8: the metazoan is not a scholarship. sent9: the lanyard does opacify terminology if the metazoan is a Bairava.

{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the uranyl is a scholarship.

{C}{ej}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lanyard does opacify terminology. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it contends then the fact that the metazoan is not a scholarship hold. sent2: that something is not a Bairava and does not contend is not true if it opacifies terminology. sent3: the lanyard is a kind of a Juvenal and is not Philistine. sent4: if something contends it is a kind of a scholarship. sent5: the lanyard is a scholarship. sent6: if there exists something such that it does contend then the metazoan is a Bairava that is not a kind of a scholarship. sent7: the domino appreciates Bloomsbury but it is not a Bairava. sent8: the metazoan is not a scholarship. sent9: the lanyard does opacify terminology if the metazoan is a Bairava. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something contends it is a kind of a scholarship.

if something contends it is a kind of a scholarship.

the lanyard is a scholarship.

the pseudophloem is a Bihari.

sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer.

{F}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudophloem is a Bihari. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a scroll.

Something isn't a scroll.

if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident.

the pseudophloem is a Bihari.

sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer.

{F}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudophloem is a Bihari. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a scroll.

Something is not a scroll.

something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident.

the pseudophloem is a Bihari.

sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer.

{F}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pseudophloem is a Bihari. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not scroll the latke disrupts defamer but it is not provident. sent2: the pseudophloem disrupts defamer if it is confrontational and it is not avian. sent3: something is avian if it disrupts defamer and is not provident. sent4: if the latke is a Bihari then the pseudophloem is avian. sent5: something is not a scroll. sent6: that there is something such that it is cleaning hold. sent7: something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational. sent8: the latke does disrupt defamer. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a scroll.

A scroll is not something.

something is a kind of a Bihari if it is confrontational.

the thumbstall is not docile.

sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the thumbstall is not docile.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thumbstall is not docile. ; $context$ = sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the nephelinite is a kind of Audenesque thing that criticizes is wrong.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the mercer is not periodontics.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe.

If the nephelinite does not believe, it is incorrect.

the nephelinite does not believe.

the thumbstall is not docile.

sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the thumbstall is not docile.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thumbstall is not docile. ; $context$ = sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the nephelinite is a kind of Audenesque thing that criticizes is wrong.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the mercer is not periodontics.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe.

The fact that the nephelinite criticizes is incorrect if it doesn't believe.

if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics.

the thumbstall is not docile.

sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the thumbstall is not docile.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thumbstall is not docile. ; $context$ = sent1: the TNT is a plebiscite. sent2: the milkman is docile. sent3: the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe. sent4: if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile. sent5: if something does not disrupt oppression then that it is docile and does believe is not correct. sent6: everything is a kind of vehicular thing that freeze-dries mystique. sent7: the nephelinite does not believe. sent8: the thumbstall is not a chopsteak. sent9: if the fact that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique and is vehicular is incorrect the nephelinite is vehicular. sent10: the thumbstall is periodontics. sent11: if the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is not right then the mercer is not periodontics. sent12: if the nephelinite is not Audenesque the mercer is not periodontics. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is docile and believes is not right then the liana is not periodontics. sent14: the mercer is not docile if the thumbstall is not periodontics. sent15: if something is a kind of a grooved or it does not disrupt oppression or both it does not disrupt oppression. sent16: either something grooves or it does not disrupt oppression or both if it is vehicular. sent17: something is not non-periodontics if the fact that it does not disrupt oppression and is not non-periodontics is not correct. sent18: if there is something such that it is a plebiscite that the mercer does not freeze-dry mystique but it is vehicular is not right. sent19: that the mercer is periodontics thing that is docile is false. sent20: there is something such that it is not a grooved. sent21: if the nephelinite does not believe then that it is Audenesque and it is periodontics is false. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the nephelinite is a kind of Audenesque thing that criticizes is wrong.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the mercer is not periodontics.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the nephelinite is Audenesque and it does criticize is incorrect if it does not believe.

The fact that the nephelinite criticizes is incorrect if it does not believe.

if the mercer is not periodontics the thumbstall is not non-docile.

the Labor is not Solomonic.

sent1: something does not complete if the fact that it is not noncommercial and it does complete is not right. sent2: the absinthe is not complete if the fact that the kohlrabi is Sumerian thing that is noncommercial is not right. sent3: that the absinthe is complete and is noncommercial is false. sent4: something that is a kind of non-oropharyngeal thing that appreciates Crick is not a choking. sent5: if the absinthe is Solomonic then the Labor is noncommercial. sent6: the fact that the fact that the Labor is not Solomonic does not hold if the fact that the fact that the absinthe does not complete but it is noncommercial is not correct hold is not incorrect. sent7: the Labor is not multilingual. sent8: everything is a kind of non-oropharyngeal thing that is not a choking. sent9: if the absinthe is complete then the Labor is Solomonic. sent10: the tailorbird is Solomonic and is a kind of a Sumerian if there exists something such that it does not choke. sent11: if the Labor is a gerontocracy then the absinthe is not oropharyngeal and appreciates Crick. sent12: if the absinthe is Solomonic or it does not complete or both then the Labor is Solomonic. sent13: that something is not noncommercial but it is not incomplete is wrong if it is Solomonic. sent14: if the absinthe is not a kind of a Sumerian then the Labor completes but it is not noncommercial. sent15: if something is both complete and commercial that it is not Solomonic is not wrong. sent16: the absinthe is not noncommercial. sent17: if the Labor is not multilingual then the fact that it is not extensile and it is not a kind of a gerontocracy is not true. sent18: if the half-mast does not choke then the fact that it appreciates Crick and is not commercial does not hold. sent19: something either appreciates Crick or is not a kind of a choking or both if it is oropharyngeal. sent20: if there is something such that that it does appreciate Crick and is noncommercial does not hold the vespid is not noncommercial. sent21: if that something is not extensile and not a gerontocracy does not hold it is a gerontocracy.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Labor is not Solomonic.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Labor is not Solomonic. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not complete if the fact that it is not noncommercial and it does complete is not right. sent2: the absinthe is not complete if the fact that the kohlrabi is Sumerian thing that is noncommercial is not right. sent3: that the absinthe is complete and is noncommercial is false. sent4: something that is a kind of non-oropharyngeal thing that appreciates Crick is not a choking. sent5: if the absinthe is Solomonic then the Labor is noncommercial. sent6: the fact that the fact that the Labor is not Solomonic does not hold if the fact that the fact that the absinthe does not complete but it is noncommercial is not correct hold is not incorrect. sent7: the Labor is not multilingual. sent8: everything is a kind of non-oropharyngeal thing that is not a choking. sent9: if the absinthe is complete then the Labor is Solomonic. sent10: the tailorbird is Solomonic and is a kind of a Sumerian if there exists something such that it does not choke. sent11: if the Labor is a gerontocracy then the absinthe is not oropharyngeal and appreciates Crick. sent12: if the absinthe is Solomonic or it does not complete or both then the Labor is Solomonic. sent13: that something is not noncommercial but it is not incomplete is wrong if it is Solomonic. sent14: if the absinthe is not a kind of a Sumerian then the Labor completes but it is not noncommercial. sent15: if something is both complete and commercial that it is not Solomonic is not wrong. sent16: the absinthe is not noncommercial. sent17: if the Labor is not multilingual then the fact that it is not extensile and it is not a kind of a gerontocracy is not true. sent18: if the half-mast does not choke then the fact that it appreciates Crick and is not commercial does not hold. sent19: something either appreciates Crick or is not a kind of a choking or both if it is oropharyngeal. sent20: if there is something such that that it does appreciate Crick and is noncommercial does not hold the vespid is not noncommercial. sent21: if that something is not extensile and not a gerontocracy does not hold it is a gerontocracy. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the absinthe does not complete but it is noncommercial.; assump1 -> int1: that the absinthe is not noncommercial is not right.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the absinthe does not complete but it is noncommercial does not hold.; sent6 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the absinthe is not noncommercial.

the absinthe is not noncommercial.

the fact that the fact that the Labor is not Solomonic does not hold if the fact that the fact that the absinthe does not complete but it is noncommercial is not correct hold is not incorrect.

there is something such that if it opacifies Berlin and is not a palatine then it is a kind of a razorback.

sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a digression and does freeze-dry Ali then it is a buteonine. sent2: something is a razorback if the fact that it opacifies Berlin and it is a palatine is true. sent3: if the promisee is a kind of a buteonine but it is not a dismemberment then it is a kind of a palatine. sent4: if something is a kind of clinker-built thing that is not budgetary then it is a Snow. sent5: if the magnesite opacifies Berlin and is a kind of a palatine it is a razorback. sent6: there is something such that if that it does opacify Berlin and it is a palatine hold then it is a razorback. sent7: if the magnesite is aversive thing that does not opacify Berlin that it is a plowwright is true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of appositional thing that does opacify percentile it is anatomic. sent9: if something that is a refill does not opacify taco then it is a offside. sent10: that there exists something such that if it is a shorts but not a rivulus then it is parhelic is true. sent11: there is something such that if it is a washbasin but not non-pneumogastric then it is a kind of a cross. sent12: if the taco does opacify privation and it opacifies snakebite it is untrustworthy. sent13: the magnesite does freeze-dry magnesite if it does houseclean and is a palatine. sent14: if something is a kind of a hire that is not a bookseller then it is a thermocoagulation. sent15: the grassland does opacify Berlin if it is a takeover and does not opacify counterrevolution. sent16: that the magnesite is a razorback is not false if it is a countersuit and it does not opacify grassland. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is a gargoylism and it is not heavenly is correct it is a langouste. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a Pomatomidae and it is not a kind of a refill then it is anticoagulative. sent19: there exists something such that if it does appreciate globeflower and does not appreciate subtreasury then it freeze-dries Ali. sent20: if something is a exchangeability and it is a kind of a ostiole then it is calciferous.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: (Ex): ({GE}x & {DL}x) -> {FC}x sent2: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ({FC}{bh} & ¬{DK}{bh}) -> {AB}{bh} sent4: (x): ({GO}x & ¬{AT}x) -> {AE}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: ({HC}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> {CB}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ({L}x & {HD}x) -> {EC}x sent9: (x): ({DG}x & ¬{FF}x) -> {AG}x sent10: (Ex): ({GT}x & ¬{N}x) -> {BJ}x sent11: (Ex): ({BQ}x & {DC}x) -> {HL}x sent12: ({AM}{hd} & {DF}{hd}) -> {FU}{hd} sent13: ({IK}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {AF}{aa} sent14: (x): ({DI}x & ¬{A}x) -> {JG}x sent15: ({IR}{ic} & ¬{JC}{ic}) -> {AA}{ic} sent16: ({AO}{aa} & ¬{DQ}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ({H}x & ¬{FI}x) -> {CJ}x sent18: (Ex): ({BB}x & ¬{DG}x) -> {BH}x sent19: (Ex): ({GQ}x & ¬{IJ}x) -> {DL}x sent20: (x): ({E}x & {EM}x) -> {BI}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it opacifies Berlin and is not a palatine then it is a kind of a razorback. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a digression and does freeze-dry Ali then it is a buteonine. sent2: something is a razorback if the fact that it opacifies Berlin and it is a palatine is true. sent3: if the promisee is a kind of a buteonine but it is not a dismemberment then it is a kind of a palatine. sent4: if something is a kind of clinker-built thing that is not budgetary then it is a Snow. sent5: if the magnesite opacifies Berlin and is a kind of a palatine it is a razorback. sent6: there is something such that if that it does opacify Berlin and it is a palatine hold then it is a razorback. sent7: if the magnesite is aversive thing that does not opacify Berlin that it is a plowwright is true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of appositional thing that does opacify percentile it is anatomic. sent9: if something that is a refill does not opacify taco then it is a offside. sent10: that there exists something such that if it is a shorts but not a rivulus then it is parhelic is true. sent11: there is something such that if it is a washbasin but not non-pneumogastric then it is a kind of a cross. sent12: if the taco does opacify privation and it opacifies snakebite it is untrustworthy. sent13: the magnesite does freeze-dry magnesite if it does houseclean and is a palatine. sent14: if something is a kind of a hire that is not a bookseller then it is a thermocoagulation. sent15: the grassland does opacify Berlin if it is a takeover and does not opacify counterrevolution. sent16: that the magnesite is a razorback is not false if it is a countersuit and it does not opacify grassland. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is a gargoylism and it is not heavenly is correct it is a langouste. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a Pomatomidae and it is not a kind of a refill then it is anticoagulative. sent19: there exists something such that if it does appreciate globeflower and does not appreciate subtreasury then it freeze-dries Ali. sent20: if something is a exchangeability and it is a kind of a ostiole then it is calciferous. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does appreciate globeflower and does not appreciate subtreasury then it freeze-dries Ali.

there exists something such that if it does appreciate globeflower and does not appreciate subtreasury then it freeze-dries Ali.

if the magnesite is aversive thing that does not opacify Berlin that it is a plowwright is true.

the salver is a upsetter.

sent1: the salver is a upsetter if it is not a 1790s. sent2: something is a 1790s and/or not a quaintness if it is patristics. sent3: the salver is consular and/or it is not a 1790s if it is patristics. sent4: if something is Viennese the fact that it is a upsetter and it is not patristics is not correct. sent5: if something is Viennese then it is a upsetter. sent6: the briarroot is sensorimotor and it does opacify orthoptist if the perceiver is non-outside. sent7: something does not opacify orthoptist and/or is sensorimotor if it is not an outside. sent8: something is a kind of a upsetter if it is not a kind of a 1790s. sent9: the salver is Viennese if the briarroot is sensorimotor. sent10: the salver is not an outside and/or it opacifies satinet if it is not a kind of a Smalley. sent11: the perceiver opacifies satinet if the stethoscope does opacifies satinet. sent12: if the salver is patristics either it is consular or it is a 1790s or both. sent13: the salver is patristics. sent14: the salver is not a Smalley. sent15: the fact that the satinet is the 1790s or it is not hyoid or both if the satinet is oropharyngeal is not wrong. sent16: something is a Smalley if it opacifies satinet. sent17: the salver is consular and/or it is a 1790s. sent18: the sunspot is monetary and/or it is not a caracal. sent19: if the perceiver is a Smalley then it is not an outside. sent20: the fact that if either the salver is not outside or it opacifies satinet or both the salver is not an outside is not wrong. sent21: the salver opacifies sunspot. sent22: something is patristics if that it is a upsetter hold.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AB}x v ¬{CJ}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent6: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x v {D}x) sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent9: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent10: ¬{G}{a} -> (¬{F}{a} v {H}{a}) sent11: {H}{d} -> {H}{c} sent12: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ¬{G}{a} sent15: {FA}{ff} -> ({AB}{ff} v ¬{FB}{ff}) sent16: (x): {H}x -> {G}x sent17: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent18: ({AO}{ak} v ¬{EL}{ak}) sent19: {G}{c} -> ¬{F}{c} sent20: (¬{F}{a} v {H}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent21: {BG}{a} sent22: (x): {B}x -> {A}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Nesselrode is a 1790s and/or not a quaintness.

({AB}{da} v ¬{CJ}{da})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the salver is a upsetter. ; $context$ = sent1: the salver is a upsetter if it is not a 1790s. sent2: something is a 1790s and/or not a quaintness if it is patristics. sent3: the salver is consular and/or it is not a 1790s if it is patristics. sent4: if something is Viennese the fact that it is a upsetter and it is not patristics is not correct. sent5: if something is Viennese then it is a upsetter. sent6: the briarroot is sensorimotor and it does opacify orthoptist if the perceiver is non-outside. sent7: something does not opacify orthoptist and/or is sensorimotor if it is not an outside. sent8: something is a kind of a upsetter if it is not a kind of a 1790s. sent9: the salver is Viennese if the briarroot is sensorimotor. sent10: the salver is not an outside and/or it opacifies satinet if it is not a kind of a Smalley. sent11: the perceiver opacifies satinet if the stethoscope does opacifies satinet. sent12: if the salver is patristics either it is consular or it is a 1790s or both. sent13: the salver is patristics. sent14: the salver is not a Smalley. sent15: the fact that the satinet is the 1790s or it is not hyoid or both if the satinet is oropharyngeal is not wrong. sent16: something is a Smalley if it opacifies satinet. sent17: the salver is consular and/or it is a 1790s. sent18: the sunspot is monetary and/or it is not a caracal. sent19: if the perceiver is a Smalley then it is not an outside. sent20: the fact that if either the salver is not outside or it opacifies satinet or both the salver is not an outside is not wrong. sent21: the salver opacifies sunspot. sent22: something is patristics if that it is a upsetter hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the salver is consular and/or it is not a 1790s if it is patristics.

the salver is consular and/or it is not a 1790s if it is patristics.

the salver is patristics.

that either the refraction disrupts forgery or it is siliceous or both is wrong.

sent1: that the refraction is a kind of a telluride is true. sent2: the story is a chapter. sent3: the story is siliceous and/or it does disrupt forgery. sent4: everything does not opacify Salvelinus. sent5: the forgery is a kind of corvine thing that is a kind of a tippet. sent6: if something is not a kind of a chapter then the fact that it either disrupts forgery or is siliceous or both is wrong. sent7: something does not freeze-dry Klimt if the fact that it does not disrupt forgery and does freeze-dry Klimt is not true. sent8: if something does not opacify Salvelinus that the fact that it is anuran and a tippet is correct is false. sent9: the story is a chapter but it does not disrupt forgery. sent10: that something does not disrupt forgery and freeze-dries Klimt is not true if it is a kind of a chapter. sent11: if the story does not disrupt forgery the refraction does disrupt forgery or it is siliceous or both.

¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the forgery is corvine and does not freeze-dry Klimt.

({IN}{ci} & ¬{EC}{ci})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that either the refraction disrupts forgery or it is siliceous or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the refraction is a kind of a telluride is true. sent2: the story is a chapter. sent3: the story is siliceous and/or it does disrupt forgery. sent4: everything does not opacify Salvelinus. sent5: the forgery is a kind of corvine thing that is a kind of a tippet. sent6: if something is not a kind of a chapter then the fact that it either disrupts forgery or is siliceous or both is wrong. sent7: something does not freeze-dry Klimt if the fact that it does not disrupt forgery and does freeze-dry Klimt is not true. sent8: if something does not opacify Salvelinus that the fact that it is anuran and a tippet is correct is false. sent9: the story is a chapter but it does not disrupt forgery. sent10: that something does not disrupt forgery and freeze-dries Klimt is not true if it is a kind of a chapter. sent11: if the story does not disrupt forgery the refraction does disrupt forgery or it is siliceous or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the story does not disrupt forgery.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the story is a chapter but it does not disrupt forgery.

the story is a chapter but it does not disrupt forgery.

if the story does not disrupt forgery the refraction does disrupt forgery or it is siliceous or both.

the percolation does hush.

sent1: there exists something such that it does not scavenge. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true. sent3: the patroller does freeze-dry oreo. sent4: something is not monovalent if it is psychoanalytical. sent5: there exists something such that it is a Othello. sent6: something is not a hush if the fact that it is not monovalent and not psychoanalytical does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not scavenge then the fact that the percolation is not a kind of a hush and does not disrupt booking does not hold. sent8: that the percolation is a kind of non-monovalent thing that is psychoanalytical is incorrect if something is not a Othello. sent9: if something is not monovalent it does hush and it is a Othello. sent10: something that is not non-psychoanalytical is not a hush. sent11: that the percolation is not monovalent but it is psychoanalytical is not right. sent12: the percolation is not an alabaster if that it is not a Anthidium and not a hush is wrong. sent13: if the percolation is psychoanalytical then that it is not a hush is not wrong. sent14: the hepatotoxin is not monovalent. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Othello then the fact that the percolation is not monovalent and it is not psychoanalytical is false.

{D}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{EQ}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: {E}{b} sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬{EQ}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{IT}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent10: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{CJ}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{GK}{a} sent13: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: ¬{B}{dd} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the percolation is a kind of a hush.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the percolation does hush. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not scavenge. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true. sent3: the patroller does freeze-dry oreo. sent4: something is not monovalent if it is psychoanalytical. sent5: there exists something such that it is a Othello. sent6: something is not a hush if the fact that it is not monovalent and not psychoanalytical does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not scavenge then the fact that the percolation is not a kind of a hush and does not disrupt booking does not hold. sent8: that the percolation is a kind of non-monovalent thing that is psychoanalytical is incorrect if something is not a Othello. sent9: if something is not monovalent it does hush and it is a Othello. sent10: something that is not non-psychoanalytical is not a hush. sent11: that the percolation is not monovalent but it is psychoanalytical is not right. sent12: the percolation is not an alabaster if that it is not a Anthidium and not a hush is wrong. sent13: if the percolation is psychoanalytical then that it is not a hush is not wrong. sent14: the hepatotoxin is not monovalent. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Othello then the fact that the percolation is not monovalent and it is not psychoanalytical is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent15 -> int1: that the percolation is not monovalent and is not psychoanalytical is wrong.; sent6 -> int2: the percolation does not hush if that that it is non-monovalent and non-psychoanalytical is right is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true.

There is something that is true about the fact that it is not a play.

if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Othello then the fact that the percolation is not monovalent and it is not psychoanalytical is false.

the percolation does hush.

sent1: there exists something such that it does not scavenge. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true. sent3: the patroller does freeze-dry oreo. sent4: something is not monovalent if it is psychoanalytical. sent5: there exists something such that it is a Othello. sent6: something is not a hush if the fact that it is not monovalent and not psychoanalytical does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not scavenge then the fact that the percolation is not a kind of a hush and does not disrupt booking does not hold. sent8: that the percolation is a kind of non-monovalent thing that is psychoanalytical is incorrect if something is not a Othello. sent9: if something is not monovalent it does hush and it is a Othello. sent10: something that is not non-psychoanalytical is not a hush. sent11: that the percolation is not monovalent but it is psychoanalytical is not right. sent12: the percolation is not an alabaster if that it is not a Anthidium and not a hush is wrong. sent13: if the percolation is psychoanalytical then that it is not a hush is not wrong. sent14: the hepatotoxin is not monovalent. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Othello then the fact that the percolation is not monovalent and it is not psychoanalytical is false.

{D}{a}

sent1: (Ex): ¬{EQ}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: {E}{b} sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬{EQ}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{IT}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent10: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{CJ}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{GK}{a} sent13: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: ¬{B}{dd} sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the percolation is a kind of a hush.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the percolation does hush. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not scavenge. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true. sent3: the patroller does freeze-dry oreo. sent4: something is not monovalent if it is psychoanalytical. sent5: there exists something such that it is a Othello. sent6: something is not a hush if the fact that it is not monovalent and not psychoanalytical does not hold. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not scavenge then the fact that the percolation is not a kind of a hush and does not disrupt booking does not hold. sent8: that the percolation is a kind of non-monovalent thing that is psychoanalytical is incorrect if something is not a Othello. sent9: if something is not monovalent it does hush and it is a Othello. sent10: something that is not non-psychoanalytical is not a hush. sent11: that the percolation is not monovalent but it is psychoanalytical is not right. sent12: the percolation is not an alabaster if that it is not a Anthidium and not a hush is wrong. sent13: if the percolation is psychoanalytical then that it is not a hush is not wrong. sent14: the hepatotoxin is not monovalent. sent15: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Othello then the fact that the percolation is not monovalent and it is not psychoanalytical is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent15 -> int1: that the percolation is not monovalent and is not psychoanalytical is wrong.; sent6 -> int2: the percolation does not hush if that that it is non-monovalent and non-psychoanalytical is right is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Othello is true.

It is true that there is something like that.

something is not a hush if the fact that it is not monovalent and not psychoanalytical does not hold.

that something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic is not true.

sent1: if the magnesite is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a seagrass is uneasy the magnesite is elysian. sent3: the magnesite is a seagrass. sent4: there are non-inattentive things. sent5: the magnesite does not freeze-dry alibi and it is not uneasy. sent6: there is something such that it is a seagrass but not uneasy. sent7: the enlarger is uneasy. sent8: the magnesite does not freeze-dry spirituality and it does not freeze-dry Mott. sent9: there is something such that it is not unenthusiastic. sent10: if something is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent11: there are easy things. sent12: something that is allopathic is not quartzose and not bolographic. sent13: the ward is a wit if something that is not radioactive does not opacify extrovert. sent14: there exists something such that it does not opacify extrovert. sent15: if the magnesite does not opacify trio and it is not a Nauruan the candlenut is not unenthusiastic. sent16: the fact that something does opacify extrovert and is not unenthusiastic is right. sent17: the magnesite is elysian if something that is not a seagrass is not uneasy. sent18: there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy. sent19: the magnesite is not unenthusiastic. sent20: there is something such that it does not opacify extrovert and it is unenthusiastic. sent21: if something disrupts destructiveness then it is not allopathic and it is not a wit. sent22: something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if the fact that it is elysian hold.

¬((Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x))

sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: {AA}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{IL}x sent5: (¬{IQ}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {AB}{hr} sent8: (¬{BE}{a} & ¬{AO}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent12: (x): {ET}x -> (¬{AG}x & ¬{AI}x) sent13: (x): (¬{GG}x & ¬{B}x) -> {IG}{c} sent14: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent15: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{gp} sent16: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent18: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: ¬{C}{a} sent20: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent21: (x): {BS}x -> (¬{ET}x & ¬{IG}x) sent22: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the candlenut opacifies extrovert.

{B}{gp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the magnesite is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a seagrass is uneasy the magnesite is elysian. sent3: the magnesite is a seagrass. sent4: there are non-inattentive things. sent5: the magnesite does not freeze-dry alibi and it is not uneasy. sent6: there is something such that it is a seagrass but not uneasy. sent7: the enlarger is uneasy. sent8: the magnesite does not freeze-dry spirituality and it does not freeze-dry Mott. sent9: there is something such that it is not unenthusiastic. sent10: if something is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent11: there are easy things. sent12: something that is allopathic is not quartzose and not bolographic. sent13: the ward is a wit if something that is not radioactive does not opacify extrovert. sent14: there exists something such that it does not opacify extrovert. sent15: if the magnesite does not opacify trio and it is not a Nauruan the candlenut is not unenthusiastic. sent16: the fact that something does opacify extrovert and is not unenthusiastic is right. sent17: the magnesite is elysian if something that is not a seagrass is not uneasy. sent18: there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy. sent19: the magnesite is not unenthusiastic. sent20: there is something such that it does not opacify extrovert and it is unenthusiastic. sent21: if something disrupts destructiveness then it is not allopathic and it is not a wit. sent22: something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if the fact that it is elysian hold. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the magnesite is elysian.; sent22 -> int2: the magnesite does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if it is elysian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the magnesite does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy.

It is not a seagrass and not uneasy.

the magnesite is elysian if something that is not a seagrass is not uneasy.

that something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic is not true.

sent1: if the magnesite is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a seagrass is uneasy the magnesite is elysian. sent3: the magnesite is a seagrass. sent4: there are non-inattentive things. sent5: the magnesite does not freeze-dry alibi and it is not uneasy. sent6: there is something such that it is a seagrass but not uneasy. sent7: the enlarger is uneasy. sent8: the magnesite does not freeze-dry spirituality and it does not freeze-dry Mott. sent9: there is something such that it is not unenthusiastic. sent10: if something is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent11: there are easy things. sent12: something that is allopathic is not quartzose and not bolographic. sent13: the ward is a wit if something that is not radioactive does not opacify extrovert. sent14: there exists something such that it does not opacify extrovert. sent15: if the magnesite does not opacify trio and it is not a Nauruan the candlenut is not unenthusiastic. sent16: the fact that something does opacify extrovert and is not unenthusiastic is right. sent17: the magnesite is elysian if something that is not a seagrass is not uneasy. sent18: there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy. sent19: the magnesite is not unenthusiastic. sent20: there is something such that it does not opacify extrovert and it is unenthusiastic. sent21: if something disrupts destructiveness then it is not allopathic and it is not a wit. sent22: something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if the fact that it is elysian hold.

¬((Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x))

sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: {AA}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{IL}x sent5: (¬{IQ}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {AB}{hr} sent8: (¬{BE}{a} & ¬{AO}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent12: (x): {ET}x -> (¬{AG}x & ¬{AI}x) sent13: (x): (¬{GG}x & ¬{B}x) -> {IG}{c} sent14: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent15: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{gp} sent16: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent18: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent19: ¬{C}{a} sent20: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent21: (x): {BS}x -> (¬{ET}x & ¬{IG}x) sent22: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the candlenut opacifies extrovert.

{B}{gp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the magnesite is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a seagrass is uneasy the magnesite is elysian. sent3: the magnesite is a seagrass. sent4: there are non-inattentive things. sent5: the magnesite does not freeze-dry alibi and it is not uneasy. sent6: there is something such that it is a seagrass but not uneasy. sent7: the enlarger is uneasy. sent8: the magnesite does not freeze-dry spirituality and it does not freeze-dry Mott. sent9: there is something such that it is not unenthusiastic. sent10: if something is elysian it is not unenthusiastic. sent11: there are easy things. sent12: something that is allopathic is not quartzose and not bolographic. sent13: the ward is a wit if something that is not radioactive does not opacify extrovert. sent14: there exists something such that it does not opacify extrovert. sent15: if the magnesite does not opacify trio and it is not a Nauruan the candlenut is not unenthusiastic. sent16: the fact that something does opacify extrovert and is not unenthusiastic is right. sent17: the magnesite is elysian if something that is not a seagrass is not uneasy. sent18: there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy. sent19: the magnesite is not unenthusiastic. sent20: there is something such that it does not opacify extrovert and it is unenthusiastic. sent21: if something disrupts destructiveness then it is not allopathic and it is not a wit. sent22: something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if the fact that it is elysian hold. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent17 -> int1: the magnesite is elysian.; sent22 -> int2: the magnesite does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if it is elysian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the magnesite does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a seagrass and not uneasy.

It isn't a seagrass and isn't uneasy.

something does not opacify extrovert and it is not unenthusiastic if the fact that it is elysian hold.

the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur.

sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: (¬{CE} & {BP}) -> ¬{HK} sent2: (¬{BD} & ¬{FJ}) sent3: (¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: (¬{F} & {E}) sent5: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {D} sent7: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

The Hebrideanness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur.

the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur.

the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur.

sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: (¬{CE} & {BP}) -> ¬{HK} sent2: (¬{BD} & ¬{FJ}) sent3: (¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: (¬{F} & {E}) sent5: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {D} sent7: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

The Hebrideanness does not occur and theCouncillorship does not occur.

if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur.

the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur.

sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: (¬{CE} & {BP}) -> ¬{HK} sent2: (¬{BD} & ¬{FJ}) sent3: (¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: (¬{F} & {E}) sent5: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {D} sent7: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the appreciating deification happens and the lunisolarness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the growling is prevented by that the non-pro-lifeness and the Mark occurs. sent2: the meshing does not occur and the opacifying Punic does not occur. sent3: if the opacifying plowwright does not occur but the nonfunctionalness occurs the opacifying anagnost does not occur. sent4: not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens. sent5: the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur. sent6: the appreciating deification happens. sent7: that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the unselfishness does not occur and the councillorship does not occur yields that the Hebrideanness does not occur.

The Hebrideanness doesn't occur and the councillorship doesn't occur.

not the opacifying plowwright but the nonfunctionalness happens.

the tickling happens.

sent1: the self happens and/or the archaisticness does not occur. sent2: if the heroine does not occur then the tickling does not occur and the ventilating occurs. sent3: if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur. sent4: the self happens or the archaisticness occurs or both. sent5: not the cosmetology but the Sadduceanness occurs if the tickle happens. sent6: that the heroine does not occur is brought about by that the archaisticness does not occur. sent7: if the televangelism occurs and the outburst occurs then the ventilating does not occur. sent8: the ventilating occurs. sent9: the outburst occurs and/or the televangelism occurs if that the deviationism does not occur hold. sent10: if the ventilating does not occur then the tickle happens and the heroine occurs. sent11: the unprintableness does not occur.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the tickle occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tickling happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the self happens and/or the archaisticness does not occur. sent2: if the heroine does not occur then the tickling does not occur and the ventilating occurs. sent3: if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur. sent4: the self happens or the archaisticness occurs or both. sent5: not the cosmetology but the Sadduceanness occurs if the tickle happens. sent6: that the heroine does not occur is brought about by that the archaisticness does not occur. sent7: if the televangelism occurs and the outburst occurs then the ventilating does not occur. sent8: the ventilating occurs. sent9: the outburst occurs and/or the televangelism occurs if that the deviationism does not occur hold. sent10: if the ventilating does not occur then the tickle happens and the heroine occurs. sent11: the unprintableness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the heroine does not occur.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the tickle does not occur and the ventilating happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur.

Either the self occurs or the archaisticness doesn't.

the self happens and/or the archaisticness does not occur.

the tickling happens.

sent1: the self happens and/or the archaisticness does not occur. sent2: if the heroine does not occur then the tickling does not occur and the ventilating occurs. sent3: if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur. sent4: the self happens or the archaisticness occurs or both. sent5: not the cosmetology but the Sadduceanness occurs if the tickle happens. sent6: that the heroine does not occur is brought about by that the archaisticness does not occur. sent7: if the televangelism occurs and the outburst occurs then the ventilating does not occur. sent8: the ventilating occurs. sent9: the outburst occurs and/or the televangelism occurs if that the deviationism does not occur hold. sent10: if the ventilating does not occur then the tickle happens and the heroine occurs. sent11: the unprintableness does not occur.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the tickle occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tickling happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the self happens and/or the archaisticness does not occur. sent2: if the heroine does not occur then the tickling does not occur and the ventilating occurs. sent3: if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur. sent4: the self happens or the archaisticness occurs or both. sent5: not the cosmetology but the Sadduceanness occurs if the tickle happens. sent6: that the heroine does not occur is brought about by that the archaisticness does not occur. sent7: if the televangelism occurs and the outburst occurs then the ventilating does not occur. sent8: the ventilating occurs. sent9: the outburst occurs and/or the televangelism occurs if that the deviationism does not occur hold. sent10: if the ventilating does not occur then the tickle happens and the heroine occurs. sent11: the unprintableness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the heroine does not occur.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the tickle does not occur and the ventilating happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not occur or both the heroine does not occur.

Either the self occurs or the archaisticness does not.

if the heroine does not occur then the tickling does not occur and the ventilating occurs.

the domatium is a PVC.

sent1: the fact that the domatium is lysogenic hold if the Zen is not a PVC and does not croon. sent2: the Zen is a kind of a stagecraft. sent3: The Cockney does not freeze-dry Zen. sent4: the leatherwork is lysogenic. sent5: if the domatium does not croon but it is a PVC then the Zen freeze-dries Cockney. sent6: if the domatium is not lysogenic and does freeze-dry Cockney then the Zen is a PVC. sent7: the Zen does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent8: the elements is lysogenic. sent9: the domatium is lysogenic. sent10: if the Zen croons and is not lysogenic the domatium is a kind of a PVC. sent11: something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct. sent12: the domatium is not a PVC if it is not lysogenic. sent13: the cantaloupe does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent14: the Zen is not a kind of a Hypsiglena. sent15: something is not a PVC if that it is not lysogenic hold. sent16: something does not croon if it is not a kind of a PVC. sent17: that the domatium is a kind of a PVC is correct if the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic. sent18: if something is not frivolous then it is not gyroscopic. sent19: the domatium is lysogenic if the Zen is not a kind of a PVC and it does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent20: the portfolio does not freeze-dry stumping and does not croon. sent21: the domatium does freeze-dry Cockney if the Zen is both not a PVC and lysogenic.

{B}{a}

sent1: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent2: {IE}{aa} sent3: ¬{AD}{ab} sent4: {AB}{ic} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent6: (¬{AB}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {AB}{cg} sent9: {AB}{a} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{fd} sent14: ¬{FF}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{AA}x sent17: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{AC}x -> ¬{DR}x sent19: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent20: (¬{CQ}{dj} & ¬{AA}{dj}) sent21: (¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the domatium is a PVC. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the domatium is lysogenic hold if the Zen is not a PVC and does not croon. sent2: the Zen is a kind of a stagecraft. sent3: The Cockney does not freeze-dry Zen. sent4: the leatherwork is lysogenic. sent5: if the domatium does not croon but it is a PVC then the Zen freeze-dries Cockney. sent6: if the domatium is not lysogenic and does freeze-dry Cockney then the Zen is a PVC. sent7: the Zen does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent8: the elements is lysogenic. sent9: the domatium is lysogenic. sent10: if the Zen croons and is not lysogenic the domatium is a kind of a PVC. sent11: something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct. sent12: the domatium is not a PVC if it is not lysogenic. sent13: the cantaloupe does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent14: the Zen is not a kind of a Hypsiglena. sent15: something is not a PVC if that it is not lysogenic hold. sent16: something does not croon if it is not a kind of a PVC. sent17: that the domatium is a kind of a PVC is correct if the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic. sent18: if something is not frivolous then it is not gyroscopic. sent19: the domatium is lysogenic if the Zen is not a kind of a PVC and it does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent20: the portfolio does not freeze-dry stumping and does not croon. sent21: the domatium does freeze-dry Cockney if the Zen is both not a PVC and lysogenic. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic if it does not freeze-dry Cockney.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the Zen does not croon and is not lysogenic.; int2 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct.

If it does not freeze-dry, it is not lysogenic.

the Zen does not freeze-dry Cockney.

the domatium is a PVC.

sent1: the fact that the domatium is lysogenic hold if the Zen is not a PVC and does not croon. sent2: the Zen is a kind of a stagecraft. sent3: The Cockney does not freeze-dry Zen. sent4: the leatherwork is lysogenic. sent5: if the domatium does not croon but it is a PVC then the Zen freeze-dries Cockney. sent6: if the domatium is not lysogenic and does freeze-dry Cockney then the Zen is a PVC. sent7: the Zen does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent8: the elements is lysogenic. sent9: the domatium is lysogenic. sent10: if the Zen croons and is not lysogenic the domatium is a kind of a PVC. sent11: something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct. sent12: the domatium is not a PVC if it is not lysogenic. sent13: the cantaloupe does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent14: the Zen is not a kind of a Hypsiglena. sent15: something is not a PVC if that it is not lysogenic hold. sent16: something does not croon if it is not a kind of a PVC. sent17: that the domatium is a kind of a PVC is correct if the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic. sent18: if something is not frivolous then it is not gyroscopic. sent19: the domatium is lysogenic if the Zen is not a kind of a PVC and it does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent20: the portfolio does not freeze-dry stumping and does not croon. sent21: the domatium does freeze-dry Cockney if the Zen is both not a PVC and lysogenic.

{B}{a}

sent1: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent2: {IE}{aa} sent3: ¬{AD}{ab} sent4: {AB}{ic} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent6: (¬{AB}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {AB}{cg} sent9: {AB}{a} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{fd} sent14: ¬{FF}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{AA}x sent17: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{AC}x -> ¬{DR}x sent19: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {AB}{a} sent20: (¬{CQ}{dj} & ¬{AA}{dj}) sent21: (¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the domatium is a PVC. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the domatium is lysogenic hold if the Zen is not a PVC and does not croon. sent2: the Zen is a kind of a stagecraft. sent3: The Cockney does not freeze-dry Zen. sent4: the leatherwork is lysogenic. sent5: if the domatium does not croon but it is a PVC then the Zen freeze-dries Cockney. sent6: if the domatium is not lysogenic and does freeze-dry Cockney then the Zen is a PVC. sent7: the Zen does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent8: the elements is lysogenic. sent9: the domatium is lysogenic. sent10: if the Zen croons and is not lysogenic the domatium is a kind of a PVC. sent11: something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct. sent12: the domatium is not a PVC if it is not lysogenic. sent13: the cantaloupe does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent14: the Zen is not a kind of a Hypsiglena. sent15: something is not a PVC if that it is not lysogenic hold. sent16: something does not croon if it is not a kind of a PVC. sent17: that the domatium is a kind of a PVC is correct if the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic. sent18: if something is not frivolous then it is not gyroscopic. sent19: the domatium is lysogenic if the Zen is not a kind of a PVC and it does not freeze-dry Cockney. sent20: the portfolio does not freeze-dry stumping and does not croon. sent21: the domatium does freeze-dry Cockney if the Zen is both not a PVC and lysogenic. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic if it does not freeze-dry Cockney.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the Zen does not croon and is not lysogenic.; int2 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not croon and is not lysogenic if that it does not freeze-dry Cockney is correct.

It is not lysogenic if it does not freeze-dry.

that the domatium is a kind of a PVC is correct if the Zen does not croon and it is not lysogenic.

the caregiver is not a Mancunian.

sent1: if the pussy-paw is not anserine but it is a kind of a epicycle then the fact that the diffusion is not anserine is not false. sent2: if the fact that the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and it is not anserine is true the caregiver is not a Mancunian. sent3: something is a kind of a Mancunian if the fact that it is both an asthma and Mancunian is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that it is Djiboutian then the diffusion is not an asthma. sent5: the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true. sent6: that the modernist is not a funiculus and does not pursue is not correct. sent7: something pursues if the fact that it is not a funiculus and it does not pursues is false. sent8: if something is not a Djiboutian then the fact that it is a kind of an asthma and it is not a Mancunian is not correct. sent9: the diffusion is both not an asthma and not anserine if there are Djiboutian things.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the caregiver is a kind of a Mancunian.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caregiver is not a Mancunian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pussy-paw is not anserine but it is a kind of a epicycle then the fact that the diffusion is not anserine is not false. sent2: if the fact that the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and it is not anserine is true the caregiver is not a Mancunian. sent3: something is a kind of a Mancunian if the fact that it is both an asthma and Mancunian is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that it is Djiboutian then the diffusion is not an asthma. sent5: the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true. sent6: that the modernist is not a funiculus and does not pursue is not correct. sent7: something pursues if the fact that it is not a funiculus and it does not pursues is false. sent8: if something is not a Djiboutian then the fact that it is a kind of an asthma and it is not a Mancunian is not correct. sent9: the diffusion is both not an asthma and not anserine if there are Djiboutian things. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: something is a kind of a Djiboutian.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and is not anserine.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true.

It's true that the American is Djiboutian.

the diffusion is both not an asthma and not anserine if there are Djiboutian things.

the caregiver is not a Mancunian.

sent1: if the pussy-paw is not anserine but it is a kind of a epicycle then the fact that the diffusion is not anserine is not false. sent2: if the fact that the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and it is not anserine is true the caregiver is not a Mancunian. sent3: something is a kind of a Mancunian if the fact that it is both an asthma and Mancunian is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that it is Djiboutian then the diffusion is not an asthma. sent5: the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true. sent6: that the modernist is not a funiculus and does not pursue is not correct. sent7: something pursues if the fact that it is not a funiculus and it does not pursues is false. sent8: if something is not a Djiboutian then the fact that it is a kind of an asthma and it is not a Mancunian is not correct. sent9: the diffusion is both not an asthma and not anserine if there are Djiboutian things.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the caregiver is a kind of a Mancunian.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caregiver is not a Mancunian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pussy-paw is not anserine but it is a kind of a epicycle then the fact that the diffusion is not anserine is not false. sent2: if the fact that the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and it is not anserine is true the caregiver is not a Mancunian. sent3: something is a kind of a Mancunian if the fact that it is both an asthma and Mancunian is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that it is Djiboutian then the diffusion is not an asthma. sent5: the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true. sent6: that the modernist is not a funiculus and does not pursue is not correct. sent7: something pursues if the fact that it is not a funiculus and it does not pursues is false. sent8: if something is not a Djiboutian then the fact that it is a kind of an asthma and it is not a Mancunian is not correct. sent9: the diffusion is both not an asthma and not anserine if there are Djiboutian things. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: something is a kind of a Djiboutian.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and is not anserine.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the American is Djiboutian is true.

The fact that the American is Djiboutian is true.

if the fact that the diffusion is not a kind of an asthma and it is not anserine is true the caregiver is not a Mancunian.

the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false.

sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the epilation is not a kind of a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel.

(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the Bush deplumes and it does attenuate.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the abbe is not a watchdog.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Bush does deplume.

The Bush does not do well.

the Bush attenuates.

the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false.

sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the epilation is not a kind of a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel.

(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the Bush deplumes and it does attenuate.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the abbe is not a watchdog.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Bush does deplume.

Bush does not do well.

if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog.

the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false.

sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the epilation is not a kind of a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel.

(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epilation is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not deplume then it is not a kind of a almandine and is a gospel. sent2: if something is a snakebite it is a watchdog. sent3: something does not deplume and does attenuate if it is a watchdog. sent4: the Bush attenuates. sent5: if the Bush deplumes and it attenuates the abbe is not a kind of a watchdog. sent6: if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold. sent7: the Bush does deplume. sent8: if the fact that the Bush does deplume and is a gospel is right then the epilation is not a almandine. sent9: if the abbe is not a watchdog then that the fact that the epilation is a almandine and is a gospel is correct is not true. sent10: the fact that the epilation is a almandine and it is a gospel is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the Bush deplumes and it does attenuate.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the abbe is not a watchdog.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Bush does deplume.

The Bush doesn't do well.

if the abbe is not a watchdog then the fact that the epilation is not a almandine but it is a kind of a gospel does not hold.

the re-entrantness happens and the steroidalness occurs.

sent1: if the doubting does not occur the freeze-drying Dexedrine happens. sent2: that if the opacifying sternocleidomastoid does not occur then the fact that both the analphabeticness and the polarographicness occurs is not right is true. sent3: if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong. sent4: the fact that the modulating happens hold. sent5: if the vulvarness does not occur the kick occurs. sent6: the TAT occurs and the steroidalness occurs if the re-entrantness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the vulvarness does not occur is not false. sent8: if that the righting does not occur hold both the vulvarness and the brachialness happens. sent9: if the adrenergicness does not occur then the antheridialness and the Linnaeanness occurs. sent10: if the antheridialness occurs then the fact that the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae happens is true. sent11: the powderizing does not occur. sent12: if the autotomy does not occur then the seiche occurs and the opacifying choreography happens. sent13: the righting does not occur if the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae occurs. sent14: if the fact that the contents does not occur is not incorrect then that the analphabeticness happens and the opened does not occur hold. sent15: the appreciating mystique happens. sent16: that the freeze-drying Dexedrine occurs but the pyroligneousness does not occur is triggered by that the doubting does not occur. sent17: if the fact that both the wester and the reassignment happens does not hold that the adrenergicness does not occur hold. sent18: the fact that the re-entrantness occurs and the kicking occurs if the vulvarness does not occur hold. sent19: both the metabolizing and the disposable occurs. sent20: the snowballing and the non-meningealness happens if the existing does not occur. sent21: that the doubting but not the kick occurs is not correct if the vulvarness occurs. sent22: the fact that both the right and the meridian occurs is not true.

({B} & {A})

sent1: ¬{D} -> {AA} sent2: ¬{DB} -> ¬({ER} & {BM}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: {IE} sent5: ¬{E} -> {C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({DU} & {A}) sent7: ¬{E} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent10: {I} -> {H} sent11: ¬{GF} sent12: ¬{BF} -> ({AE} & {O}) sent13: {H} -> ¬{G} sent14: ¬{HJ} -> ({ER} & ¬{CI}) sent15: {BS} sent16: ¬{D} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{K} sent18: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent19: ({IR} & {GK}) sent20: ¬{BE} -> ({AO} & ¬{BQ}) sent21: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent22: ¬({G} & {GD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the TAT happens.

{DU}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the re-entrantness happens and the steroidalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the doubting does not occur the freeze-drying Dexedrine happens. sent2: that if the opacifying sternocleidomastoid does not occur then the fact that both the analphabeticness and the polarographicness occurs is not right is true. sent3: if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong. sent4: the fact that the modulating happens hold. sent5: if the vulvarness does not occur the kick occurs. sent6: the TAT occurs and the steroidalness occurs if the re-entrantness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the vulvarness does not occur is not false. sent8: if that the righting does not occur hold both the vulvarness and the brachialness happens. sent9: if the adrenergicness does not occur then the antheridialness and the Linnaeanness occurs. sent10: if the antheridialness occurs then the fact that the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae happens is true. sent11: the powderizing does not occur. sent12: if the autotomy does not occur then the seiche occurs and the opacifying choreography happens. sent13: the righting does not occur if the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae occurs. sent14: if the fact that the contents does not occur is not incorrect then that the analphabeticness happens and the opened does not occur hold. sent15: the appreciating mystique happens. sent16: that the freeze-drying Dexedrine occurs but the pyroligneousness does not occur is triggered by that the doubting does not occur. sent17: if the fact that both the wester and the reassignment happens does not hold that the adrenergicness does not occur hold. sent18: the fact that the re-entrantness occurs and the kicking occurs if the vulvarness does not occur hold. sent19: both the metabolizing and the disposable occurs. sent20: the snowballing and the non-meningealness happens if the existing does not occur. sent21: that the doubting but not the kick occurs is not correct if the vulvarness occurs. sent22: the fact that both the right and the meridian occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong.

The fact that the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong if the steroidalness does not occur.

the fact that the re-entrantness occurs and the kicking occurs if the vulvarness does not occur hold.

the re-entrantness happens and the steroidalness occurs.

sent1: if the doubting does not occur the freeze-drying Dexedrine happens. sent2: that if the opacifying sternocleidomastoid does not occur then the fact that both the analphabeticness and the polarographicness occurs is not right is true. sent3: if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong. sent4: the fact that the modulating happens hold. sent5: if the vulvarness does not occur the kick occurs. sent6: the TAT occurs and the steroidalness occurs if the re-entrantness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the vulvarness does not occur is not false. sent8: if that the righting does not occur hold both the vulvarness and the brachialness happens. sent9: if the adrenergicness does not occur then the antheridialness and the Linnaeanness occurs. sent10: if the antheridialness occurs then the fact that the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae happens is true. sent11: the powderizing does not occur. sent12: if the autotomy does not occur then the seiche occurs and the opacifying choreography happens. sent13: the righting does not occur if the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae occurs. sent14: if the fact that the contents does not occur is not incorrect then that the analphabeticness happens and the opened does not occur hold. sent15: the appreciating mystique happens. sent16: that the freeze-drying Dexedrine occurs but the pyroligneousness does not occur is triggered by that the doubting does not occur. sent17: if the fact that both the wester and the reassignment happens does not hold that the adrenergicness does not occur hold. sent18: the fact that the re-entrantness occurs and the kicking occurs if the vulvarness does not occur hold. sent19: both the metabolizing and the disposable occurs. sent20: the snowballing and the non-meningealness happens if the existing does not occur. sent21: that the doubting but not the kick occurs is not correct if the vulvarness occurs. sent22: the fact that both the right and the meridian occurs is not true.

({B} & {A})

sent1: ¬{D} -> {AA} sent2: ¬{DB} -> ¬({ER} & {BM}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: {IE} sent5: ¬{E} -> {C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({DU} & {A}) sent7: ¬{E} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent10: {I} -> {H} sent11: ¬{GF} sent12: ¬{BF} -> ({AE} & {O}) sent13: {H} -> ¬{G} sent14: ¬{HJ} -> ({ER} & ¬{CI}) sent15: {BS} sent16: ¬{D} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{K} sent18: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent19: ({IR} & {GK}) sent20: ¬{BE} -> ({AO} & ¬{BQ}) sent21: {E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent22: ¬({G} & {GD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the TAT happens.

{DU}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the re-entrantness happens and the steroidalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the doubting does not occur the freeze-drying Dexedrine happens. sent2: that if the opacifying sternocleidomastoid does not occur then the fact that both the analphabeticness and the polarographicness occurs is not right is true. sent3: if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong. sent4: the fact that the modulating happens hold. sent5: if the vulvarness does not occur the kick occurs. sent6: the TAT occurs and the steroidalness occurs if the re-entrantness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the vulvarness does not occur is not false. sent8: if that the righting does not occur hold both the vulvarness and the brachialness happens. sent9: if the adrenergicness does not occur then the antheridialness and the Linnaeanness occurs. sent10: if the antheridialness occurs then the fact that the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae happens is true. sent11: the powderizing does not occur. sent12: if the autotomy does not occur then the seiche occurs and the opacifying choreography happens. sent13: the righting does not occur if the freeze-drying Anarhichadidae occurs. sent14: if the fact that the contents does not occur is not incorrect then that the analphabeticness happens and the opened does not occur hold. sent15: the appreciating mystique happens. sent16: that the freeze-drying Dexedrine occurs but the pyroligneousness does not occur is triggered by that the doubting does not occur. sent17: if the fact that both the wester and the reassignment happens does not hold that the adrenergicness does not occur hold. sent18: the fact that the re-entrantness occurs and the kicking occurs if the vulvarness does not occur hold. sent19: both the metabolizing and the disposable occurs. sent20: the snowballing and the non-meningealness happens if the existing does not occur. sent21: that the doubting but not the kick occurs is not correct if the vulvarness occurs. sent22: the fact that both the right and the meridian occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the steroidalness does not occur the fact that both the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong.

The fact that the freeze-drying Dexedrine and the non-pyroligneousness occurs is wrong if the steroidalness doesn't occur.

the fact that the vulvarness does not occur is not false.

that the PO is pistillate and it is a kind of a brachium is wrong.

sent1: something is a kind of a CD-ROM and/or it is a secularism if it is not algal. sent2: something is a twayblade if it is a secularism. sent3: something is Bayesian if the fact that it is Bayesian and appreciates Balanus is not right. sent4: if the embalmment is not a rank it does not enlist and/or it is Mozartian. sent5: the PO is a brachium. sent6: if there exists something such that it is a twayblade then the fact that the outskirts is not Bayesian and appreciates Balanus is not true. sent7: something is pistillate and is a brachium if it is not Bayesian. sent8: the embalmment does not rank. sent9: if the fact that the PO is not Bayesian hold it is a brachium. sent10: if something does not enlist and/or it is Mozartian it is not algal. sent11: the PO is non-Bayesian. sent12: something is a twayblade if it is a CD-ROM. sent13: something is a brachium if it is not Bayesian.

¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the PO is both pistillate and a brachium does not hold.

¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the PO is pistillate and it is a kind of a brachium is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a CD-ROM and/or it is a secularism if it is not algal. sent2: something is a twayblade if it is a secularism. sent3: something is Bayesian if the fact that it is Bayesian and appreciates Balanus is not right. sent4: if the embalmment is not a rank it does not enlist and/or it is Mozartian. sent5: the PO is a brachium. sent6: if there exists something such that it is a twayblade then the fact that the outskirts is not Bayesian and appreciates Balanus is not true. sent7: something is pistillate and is a brachium if it is not Bayesian. sent8: the embalmment does not rank. sent9: if the fact that the PO is not Bayesian hold it is a brachium. sent10: if something does not enlist and/or it is Mozartian it is not algal. sent11: the PO is non-Bayesian. sent12: something is a twayblade if it is a CD-ROM. sent13: something is a brachium if it is not Bayesian. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the PO is not Bayesian then it is pistillate and a brachium.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is pistillate and is a brachium if it is not Bayesian.

something is pistillate and is a brachium if it is not Bayesian.

the PO is non-Bayesian.

the subtropicalness and the pirating occurs.

sent1: if the disguise does not occur the pirate happens and/or the subtropicalness happens. sent2: the subtropicalness occurs. sent3: the pirating occurs. sent4: that the undynamicness and the femoralness happens hold. sent5: the opacifying repellent does not occur if the fact that the matriarchalness does not occur is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the non-aneurysmalness and the tapotement occurs is wrong if the peroration does not occur. sent7: the tapotement does not occur and the disguise does not occur if the aneurysmalness does not occur. sent8: the matriarchalness does not occur if not the destroying but the retrorseness happens. sent9: the skewing and the rationalisticness occurs. sent10: the aneurysmalness does not occur if either the ascosporicness happens or the peroration does not occur or both. sent11: if the femoralness happens then the plication does not occur. sent12: both the politeness and the vibrionicness happens if the opacifying repellent does not occur. sent13: if the politeness happens the peroration does not occur and the endogeny does not occur. sent14: that the destroying does not occur but the retrorseness happens is brought about by that the plication does not occur. sent15: that the disguise does not occur if the fact that the aneurysmalness does not occur but the tapotement occurs does not hold hold.

({A} & {B})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the virginalness happens.

{ES}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subtropicalness and the pirating occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the disguise does not occur the pirate happens and/or the subtropicalness happens. sent2: the subtropicalness occurs. sent3: the pirating occurs. sent4: that the undynamicness and the femoralness happens hold. sent5: the opacifying repellent does not occur if the fact that the matriarchalness does not occur is not incorrect. sent6: the fact that the non-aneurysmalness and the tapotement occurs is wrong if the peroration does not occur. sent7: the tapotement does not occur and the disguise does not occur if the aneurysmalness does not occur. sent8: the matriarchalness does not occur if not the destroying but the retrorseness happens. sent9: the skewing and the rationalisticness occurs. sent10: the aneurysmalness does not occur if either the ascosporicness happens or the peroration does not occur or both. sent11: if the femoralness happens then the plication does not occur. sent12: both the politeness and the vibrionicness happens if the opacifying repellent does not occur. sent13: if the politeness happens the peroration does not occur and the endogeny does not occur. sent14: that the destroying does not occur but the retrorseness happens is brought about by that the plication does not occur. sent15: that the disguise does not occur if the fact that the aneurysmalness does not occur but the tapotement occurs does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the subtropicalness occurs.

the subtropicalness occurs.

the pirating occurs.

the junkie does disrupt controllership.

sent1: the fact that the scribe is a chincapin hold. sent2: if the amorphophallus is a Dartmouth the junkie is a Dartmouth. sent3: the junkie does twine if the amorphophallus is a chincapin. sent4: everything is a ton and it is a kind of an explanation. sent5: the fact that the amorphophallus does disrupt controllership and is a chincapin is false. sent6: the junkie does cat. sent7: the amorphophallus does twine. sent8: if a non-seminal thing does twine then it does not disrupt controllership. sent9: the fact that the amorphophallus is a chincapin and it freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold. sent10: the fact that the amorphophallus is not a Demulen and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee is incorrect. sent11: if the fetishist does not sprinkle the amorphophallus is pyrotechnic and it is a Dartmouth. sent12: the fact that the ichor does not opacify feverfew and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee is not true if the amorphophallus disrupts controllership. sent13: if a ton is an explanation then it is not a kind of a sprinkle. sent14: the amorphophallus does disrupt controllership if the fact that the junkie does not freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee but it is a kind of a chincapin does not hold. sent15: the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin but it does freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee is false. sent16: the fact that the junkie does not disrupt controllership and is a chincapin does not hold. sent17: the amorphophallus twines if that that the junkie does not freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee and does disrupt controllership is correct does not hold. sent18: the barnacle freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee. sent19: the fact that the junkie does twine and it does freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee is not true. sent20: if the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold the junkie does twine.

{A}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the ichor does not opacify feverfew and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee is incorrect.

¬(¬{DK}{t} & {AB}{t})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the junkie does disrupt controllership. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the scribe is a chincapin hold. sent2: if the amorphophallus is a Dartmouth the junkie is a Dartmouth. sent3: the junkie does twine if the amorphophallus is a chincapin. sent4: everything is a ton and it is a kind of an explanation. sent5: the fact that the amorphophallus does disrupt controllership and is a chincapin is false. sent6: the junkie does cat. sent7: the amorphophallus does twine. sent8: if a non-seminal thing does twine then it does not disrupt controllership. sent9: the fact that the amorphophallus is a chincapin and it freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold. sent10: the fact that the amorphophallus is not a Demulen and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee is incorrect. sent11: if the fetishist does not sprinkle the amorphophallus is pyrotechnic and it is a Dartmouth. sent12: the fact that the ichor does not opacify feverfew and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee is not true if the amorphophallus disrupts controllership. sent13: if a ton is an explanation then it is not a kind of a sprinkle. sent14: the amorphophallus does disrupt controllership if the fact that the junkie does not freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee but it is a kind of a chincapin does not hold. sent15: the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin but it does freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee is false. sent16: the fact that the junkie does not disrupt controllership and is a chincapin does not hold. sent17: the amorphophallus twines if that that the junkie does not freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee and does disrupt controllership is correct does not hold. sent18: the barnacle freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee. sent19: the fact that the junkie does twine and it does freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee is not true. sent20: if the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold the junkie does twine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold the junkie does twine.

if the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin and freeze-dries cuckoo-bumblebee does not hold the junkie does twine.

the fact that the amorphophallus is not a chincapin but it does freeze-dry cuckoo-bumblebee is false.

the portage does not appreciate eyepatch but it is a Americanism.

sent1: the portage is a kind of a Americanism. sent2: if something is a placeman that it does not appreciate eyepatch and it is a Americanism does not hold. sent3: the Jihadist is not a placeman. sent4: the portage is not a kind of a placeman but it does appreciate Amphiprion. sent5: the shingling is a Americanism.

(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the portage does not appreciate eyepatch and is a Americanism does not hold.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the portage does not appreciate eyepatch but it is a Americanism. ; $context$ = sent1: the portage is a kind of a Americanism. sent2: if something is a placeman that it does not appreciate eyepatch and it is a Americanism does not hold. sent3: the Jihadist is not a placeman. sent4: the portage is not a kind of a placeman but it does appreciate Amphiprion. sent5: the shingling is a Americanism. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the shingling is a Americanism.

the shingling is a Americanism.

the portage is a kind of a Americanism.

the Attic is a DLE and it lectures.

sent1: if the Attic is a kind of a mastoid the fact that it does not sublime and it does not lecture is not true. sent2: the Attic is a mastoid. sent3: that the Attic is a DLE hold if the sunspot is a broody. sent4: if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture. sent5: if something does not sublime it is a kind of a broody and it is a ready. sent6: if the sunspot is a kind of a ready then the mite does recall. sent7: if the mite is a kind of a recall the sunspot is a broody. sent8: either the mite recalls or it is a kind of a ready or both.

({D}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Attic is a kind of a DLE and it is a lecture does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Attic is a DLE and it lectures. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Attic is a kind of a mastoid the fact that it does not sublime and it does not lecture is not true. sent2: the Attic is a mastoid. sent3: that the Attic is a DLE hold if the sunspot is a broody. sent4: if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture. sent5: if something does not sublime it is a kind of a broody and it is a ready. sent6: if the sunspot is a kind of a ready then the mite does recall. sent7: if the mite is a kind of a recall the sunspot is a broody. sent8: either the mite recalls or it is a kind of a ready or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture.

It does lecture if something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and something doesn't lecture and

if the Attic is a kind of a mastoid the fact that it does not sublime and it does not lecture is not true.

the Attic is a DLE and it lectures.

sent1: if the Attic is a kind of a mastoid the fact that it does not sublime and it does not lecture is not true. sent2: the Attic is a mastoid. sent3: that the Attic is a DLE hold if the sunspot is a broody. sent4: if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture. sent5: if something does not sublime it is a kind of a broody and it is a ready. sent6: if the sunspot is a kind of a ready then the mite does recall. sent7: if the mite is a kind of a recall the sunspot is a broody. sent8: either the mite recalls or it is a kind of a ready or both.

({D}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Attic is a kind of a DLE and it is a lecture does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Attic is a DLE and it lectures. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Attic is a kind of a mastoid the fact that it does not sublime and it does not lecture is not true. sent2: the Attic is a mastoid. sent3: that the Attic is a DLE hold if the sunspot is a broody. sent4: if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture. sent5: if something does not sublime it is a kind of a broody and it is a ready. sent6: if the sunspot is a kind of a ready then the mite does recall. sent7: if the mite is a kind of a recall the sunspot is a broody. sent8: either the mite recalls or it is a kind of a ready or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that something does not sublime and does not lecture is false it does lecture.

It does lecture if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture and if it doesn't lecture

the Attic is a mastoid.

the lager is not a kind of an aerial.

sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect.

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lager is a kind of an aerial.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lager is not a kind of an aerial. ; $context$ = sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the walk-through is atypical.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the lager does gelatinize.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right.

If the camouflage is acquisitive or not, the walk-through is atypical.

the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold.

the lager is not a kind of an aerial.

sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect.

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lager is a kind of an aerial.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lager is not a kind of an aerial. ; $context$ = sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the walk-through is atypical.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the lager does gelatinize.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right.

The walk-through is atypical if the camouflage is acquisitive or not.

if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes.

the lager is not a kind of an aerial.

sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect.

¬{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lager is a kind of an aerial.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lager is not a kind of an aerial. ; $context$ = sent1: the walk-through is atypical if that the camouflage is hydrostatic or is not unacquisitive or both does not hold. sent2: if the apparel gelatinizes then that the walk-through is non-atypical and not an aerial does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of a refilling either it does not gelatinize or it is not atypical or both. sent4: something is cinematic a forecaster if it is not a kind of a stigmatism. sent5: the walk-through does determine if the lager does determine. sent6: the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes. sent7: that the lager is hydrostatic is not false. sent8: the fact that that the camouflage either is not hydrostatic or is acquisitive or both is incorrect hold. sent9: if the walk-through determines the camouflage is a refilling. sent10: if the walk-through is not non-atypical then the lager gelatinizes. sent11: if the apparel is not a kind of an eon and/or does determine then the lager does determine. sent12: the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right. sent13: if the camouflage is an aerial then the lager is a kind of an aerial. sent14: either the apparel is not an eon or it does determine or both if it is cinematic. sent15: the camouflage is hydrostatic. sent16: the camouflage does gelatinize if the lager is hydrostatic. sent17: if the lager is unacquisitive it does not gelatinize. sent18: the fact that the camouflage does not appreciate preparation and/or it is not a swell is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent8 -> int1: the walk-through is atypical.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the lager does gelatinize.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the walk-through is atypical if that either the camouflage is not hydrostatic or it is acquisitive or both is not right.

If the camouflage is acquisitive or not, then the walk-through is atypical.

the lager is not aerial if it gelatinizes.

there is something such that the fact that it is not a lathe and it is not tuberous is wrong.

sent1: that that the thiobacillus is a kind of a lathe that is not tuberous is right does not hold if it is not bony. sent2: that the thiobacillus is both not a lathe and non-tuberous is not correct if it is not bony. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a lathe and it is not tuberous is not right. sent4: if the corer is not a secretase that it is not labyrinthine and it is not tuberous is wrong.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬{HP}{gl} -> ¬(¬{BS}{gl} & ¬{AB}{gl})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it is not a lathe and it is not tuberous is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the thiobacillus is a kind of a lathe that is not tuberous is right does not hold if it is not bony. sent2: that the thiobacillus is both not a lathe and non-tuberous is not correct if it is not bony. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a lathe and it is not tuberous is not right. sent4: if the corer is not a secretase that it is not labyrinthine and it is not tuberous is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is a kind of a lathe and it is not tuberous is not right.

there exists something such that that it is a kind of a lathe and it is not tuberous is not right.

if the corer is not a secretase that it is not labyrinthine and it is not tuberous is wrong.

the calamus is a kind of a oscine.

sent1: the fortress is ancestral if that it is autolytic is true. sent2: the fact that something is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako does not hold if that it is not autolytic is not incorrect. sent3: The Bamako does not exercise calamus. sent4: the calamus does not exercise Bamako. sent5: something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine. sent6: if the calamus does not exercise Bamako it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet. sent7: something is oscine if that it is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako is not true. sent8: that the calamus is not a oscine hold if it does exercise nonworker and it is not a toucanet.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the calamus is a kind of a oscine.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calamus is a kind of a oscine. ; $context$ = sent1: the fortress is ancestral if that it is autolytic is true. sent2: the fact that something is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako does not hold if that it is not autolytic is not incorrect. sent3: The Bamako does not exercise calamus. sent4: the calamus does not exercise Bamako. sent5: something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine. sent6: if the calamus does not exercise Bamako it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet. sent7: something is oscine if that it is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako is not true. sent8: that the calamus is not a oscine hold if it does exercise nonworker and it is not a toucanet. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the calamus is not a kind of a oscine hold if it does not exercise nonworker and is not a kind of a toucanet.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the calamus does not exercise nonworker and is not a kind of a toucanet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine.

It is not oscine if it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet.

if the calamus does not exercise Bamako it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet.

the calamus is a kind of a oscine.

sent1: the fortress is ancestral if that it is autolytic is true. sent2: the fact that something is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako does not hold if that it is not autolytic is not incorrect. sent3: The Bamako does not exercise calamus. sent4: the calamus does not exercise Bamako. sent5: something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine. sent6: if the calamus does not exercise Bamako it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet. sent7: something is oscine if that it is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako is not true. sent8: that the calamus is not a oscine hold if it does exercise nonworker and it is not a toucanet.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the calamus is a kind of a oscine.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calamus is a kind of a oscine. ; $context$ = sent1: the fortress is ancestral if that it is autolytic is true. sent2: the fact that something is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako does not hold if that it is not autolytic is not incorrect. sent3: The Bamako does not exercise calamus. sent4: the calamus does not exercise Bamako. sent5: something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine. sent6: if the calamus does not exercise Bamako it does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet. sent7: something is oscine if that it is ancestral thing that does not exercise Bamako is not true. sent8: that the calamus is not a oscine hold if it does exercise nonworker and it is not a toucanet. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: that the calamus is not a kind of a oscine hold if it does not exercise nonworker and is not a kind of a toucanet.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the calamus does not exercise nonworker and is not a kind of a toucanet.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that does not exercise nonworker and is not a toucanet is not oscine.

It's not oscine if it doesn't exercise nonworker and isn't a toucanet.

the calamus does not exercise Bamako.

the purser does not skipper.

sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the purser is a skipper.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the purser does not skipper. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: if the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is not wrong it does not frog venter and is not a kind of a rent.; sent14 & sent1 & sent10 -> int2: the bottom-feeder does mature.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and it is not a kind of a rent.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false.

If the fact that it does mature is true, then something does not frog venter and does not rent.

the breeze kicks or it does mature or both.

the purser does not skipper.

sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the purser is a skipper.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the purser does not skipper. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: if the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is not wrong it does not frog venter and is not a kind of a rent.; sent14 & sent1 & sent10 -> int2: the bottom-feeder does mature.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and it is not a kind of a rent.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false.

If the fact that it does mature is true, then something doesn't frog venter and doesn't rent.

the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks.

the purser does not skipper.

sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the purser is a skipper.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the purser does not skipper. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: if the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is not wrong it does not frog venter and is not a kind of a rent.; sent14 & sent1 & sent10 -> int2: the bottom-feeder does mature.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and it is not a kind of a rent.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false.

If the fact that it does mature is true, something does not frog venter and does not rent.

the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature.

the purser does not skipper.

sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the purser is a skipper.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the purser does not skipper. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is right if the breeze kicks. sent2: something does mature if that it is not nonsectarian and it does not top does not hold. sent3: if something does not suspect then that it is a sporozoan and impatient does not hold. sent4: if the purser does kick then it is not a kind of a skipper and it is not a rent. sent5: the hovel is not a suspect if the phalsa does not suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent6: if the bottom-feeder frogs venter then the breeze frogs venter. sent7: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter. sent8: the phalsa is not a suspect or it is not a kind of a overanxiety or both. sent9: the fact that the breeze does not rail and it does not exercise grassfire is incorrect if it is a smoulder. sent10: the bottom-feeder is mature if the breeze mature. sent11: the fact that the breeze is mature and/or it does frog venter is not false. sent12: that if that the breeze is not the rail and it does not exercise grassfire does not hold then the breeze is audible is right. sent13: if the breeze is an audible then that it is not nonsectarian and does not top does not hold. sent14: the breeze kicks or it does mature or both. sent15: if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper. sent16: something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false. sent17: if the breeze is not organismal then that it does not kick and it is dramatics hold. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: if the fact that the bottom-feeder does mature is not wrong it does not frog venter and is not a kind of a rent.; sent14 & sent1 & sent10 -> int2: the bottom-feeder does mature.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and it is not a kind of a rent.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not frog venter and does not rent if the fact that it does mature is not false.

If the fact that it does mature is true, something doesn't frog venter and doesn't rent.

if the bottom-feeder does not frog venter and is not a rent then the purser does not skipper.

the alienator is glossopharyngeal and does frog saprophyte.

sent1: the boat is not a nudibranch. sent2: the boat is glossopharyngeal and it does exercise ammonium. sent3: the Brazil is not glossopharyngeal. sent4: the alienator is a nudibranch if the boat is not glossopharyngeal. sent5: the boat does not frog saprophyte. sent6: the alienator frogs saprophyte and is a nudibranch if the boat is not glossopharyngeal. sent7: the alienator frogs saprophyte. sent8: if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator is not non-glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte. sent9: if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator does frog saprophyte. sent10: the alienator is a kind of equal thing that is a nudibranch. sent11: the alienator is a nudibranch and it frogs saprophyte. sent12: the fact that something is glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte does not hold if it is not a kind of a nudibranch.

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

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} & {BS}{a}) sent3: ¬{AA}{ga} sent4: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: {AB}{b} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent10: ({CL}{b} & {A}{b}) sent11: ({A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the alienator is glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte does not hold.

¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alienator is glossopharyngeal and does frog saprophyte. ; $context$ = sent1: the boat is not a nudibranch. sent2: the boat is glossopharyngeal and it does exercise ammonium. sent3: the Brazil is not glossopharyngeal. sent4: the alienator is a nudibranch if the boat is not glossopharyngeal. sent5: the boat does not frog saprophyte. sent6: the alienator frogs saprophyte and is a nudibranch if the boat is not glossopharyngeal. sent7: the alienator frogs saprophyte. sent8: if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator is not non-glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte. sent9: if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator does frog saprophyte. sent10: the alienator is a kind of equal thing that is a nudibranch. sent11: the alienator is a nudibranch and it frogs saprophyte. sent12: the fact that something is glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte does not hold if it is not a kind of a nudibranch. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator is not non-glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte.

if the boat is not a nudibranch the alienator is not non-glossopharyngeal and frogs saprophyte.

the boat is not a nudibranch.

that the conspecific does not frog chantey but it is a kind of a sheriff is incorrect.

sent1: the spinach is radiographic if there exists something such that it does not close incaution. sent2: if there exists something such that it does not close exabit and/or is not a plantigrade the spinach is not a plantigrade. sent3: the PTO does incur. sent4: if the Honduran does not close incaution the conspecific does not frog chantey. sent5: the fact that the chordamesoderm is a pug hold. sent6: the fact that the Honduran is a sheriff and it is not non-radiographic is wrong. sent7: if something that does incur is a pug it does not close exabit. sent8: if there are aplitic things then the mineral is a kind of a arse. sent9: the PTO is a pug if the chordamesoderm is a pug. sent10: that something is a Psalms is correct. sent11: if something that does not exercise runner-up does not exercise grimoire it is aplitic. sent12: if there is something such that it is a Psalms then that the fact that the Honduran is not non-radiographic and it is plantigrade is false is correct. sent13: if the Honduran does not close incaution then the conspecific does not frog chantey and is a sheriff. sent14: there is something such that it is aplitic. sent15: if the Honduran is not a plantigrade it does not close incaution. sent16: the fact that the nosewheel does not exercise runner-up and does not exercise grimoire hold. sent17: something does not close incaution if the fact that it is radiographic and it is a plantigrade does not hold. sent18: something that is a arse does not close incaution. sent19: if a non-plantigrade thing is radiographic the Honduran is not a Psalms.

¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED