Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the diagnostician is European.

sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a sarcomere then the Young is not traditional and it is not a kind of a Stroheim. sent2: something is not a sarcomere if it either is not confident or is not a sarcomere or both. sent3: the diagnostician is not a Hyaenidae and not a lipogram. sent4: if the Young is not traditional and not a Stroheim then the diagnostician is a kind of a European. sent5: there exists something such that it is not a sarcomere. sent6: the diagnostician is a European if the Young is traditional and is not a Stroheim. sent7: the diagnostician is a sarcomere and/or it is a Stroheim if it is not a European. sent8: if the welt is not conclusive the Young either is not confident or is not a kind of a sarcomere or both. sent9: if the Young is a sarcomere then the Seder is not a spoonbill and it is not traditional. sent10: there exists something such that it is a sarcomere. sent11: the fact that either the rooftop is a Malvastrum or it is a kind of a Stroheim or both does not hold. sent12: the Young is not traditional. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a sarcomere the Young is not traditional. sent14: the Young is a European.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{E}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: (¬{AO}{b} & ¬{AT}{b}) sent4: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent6: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent7: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent8: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{E}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{JF}{ed} & ¬{B}{ed}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: ¬({F}{d} v {C}{d}) sent12: ¬{B}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: {D}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the diagnostician is not a European.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the diagnostician is European. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a sarcomere then the Young is not traditional and it is not a kind of a Stroheim. sent2: something is not a sarcomere if it either is not confident or is not a sarcomere or both. sent3: the diagnostician is not a Hyaenidae and not a lipogram. sent4: if the Young is not traditional and not a Stroheim then the diagnostician is a kind of a European. sent5: there exists something such that it is not a sarcomere. sent6: the diagnostician is a European if the Young is traditional and is not a Stroheim. sent7: the diagnostician is a sarcomere and/or it is a Stroheim if it is not a European. sent8: if the welt is not conclusive the Young either is not confident or is not a kind of a sarcomere or both. sent9: if the Young is a sarcomere then the Seder is not a spoonbill and it is not traditional. sent10: there exists something such that it is a sarcomere. sent11: the fact that either the rooftop is a Malvastrum or it is a kind of a Stroheim or both does not hold. sent12: the Young is not traditional. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a sarcomere the Young is not traditional. sent14: the Young is a European. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the Young is not traditional and it is not a Stroheim.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a sarcomere.

There is a thing that is not a sarcomere.

if the Young is not traditional and not a Stroheim then the diagnostician is a kind of a European.

the Airedale does exercise guerrilla.

sent1: the Airedale is both not a hatch and not Zambian. sent2: if something exercises psychologist it exercises guerrilla. sent3: the pasqueflower exercises psychologist. sent4: if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right. sent5: if the Airedale is light-duty thing that does not exercise psychologist then it is a top. sent6: the facilitation exercises guerrilla if either the Airedale does not exercises guerrilla or it does exercise psychologist or both. sent7: if the Airedale is not a hatch but Zambian then it exercises psychologist. sent8: the vandal is a kind of a Vanern that is dominical. sent9: everything is not a kind of a Oxyura.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Airedale does not exercise guerrilla.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Airedale does exercise guerrilla. ; $context$ = sent1: the Airedale is both not a hatch and not Zambian. sent2: if something exercises psychologist it exercises guerrilla. sent3: the pasqueflower exercises psychologist. sent4: if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right. sent5: if the Airedale is light-duty thing that does not exercise psychologist then it is a top. sent6: the facilitation exercises guerrilla if either the Airedale does not exercises guerrilla or it does exercise psychologist or both. sent7: if the Airedale is not a hatch but Zambian then it exercises psychologist. sent8: the vandal is a kind of a Vanern that is dominical. sent9: everything is not a kind of a Oxyura. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the Airedale does exercise psychologist is correct.; sent2 -> int2: the Airedale exercises guerrilla if it does exercise psychologist.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right.

The psychologist is right that the Airedale is not a hatch.

the Airedale is both not a hatch and not Zambian.

the Airedale does exercise guerrilla.

sent1: the Airedale is both not a hatch and not Zambian. sent2: if something exercises psychologist it exercises guerrilla. sent3: the pasqueflower exercises psychologist. sent4: if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right. sent5: if the Airedale is light-duty thing that does not exercise psychologist then it is a top. sent6: the facilitation exercises guerrilla if either the Airedale does not exercises guerrilla or it does exercise psychologist or both. sent7: if the Airedale is not a hatch but Zambian then it exercises psychologist. sent8: the vandal is a kind of a Vanern that is dominical. sent9: everything is not a kind of a Oxyura.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Airedale does not exercise guerrilla.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Airedale does exercise guerrilla. ; $context$ = sent1: the Airedale is both not a hatch and not Zambian. sent2: if something exercises psychologist it exercises guerrilla. sent3: the pasqueflower exercises psychologist. sent4: if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right. sent5: if the Airedale is light-duty thing that does not exercise psychologist then it is a top. sent6: the facilitation exercises guerrilla if either the Airedale does not exercises guerrilla or it does exercise psychologist or both. sent7: if the Airedale is not a hatch but Zambian then it exercises psychologist. sent8: the vandal is a kind of a Vanern that is dominical. sent9: everything is not a kind of a Oxyura. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the Airedale does exercise psychologist is correct.; sent2 -> int2: the Airedale exercises guerrilla if it does exercise psychologist.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Airedale is not a hatch and not a Zambian that it exercises psychologist is right.

The psychologist is correct if the Airedale is a hatch and not a Zambian.

if something exercises psychologist it exercises guerrilla.

the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect.

sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia.

¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

something is not a cellar.

(Ex): ¬{GK}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the tiglon is not tangible is not wrong if the fact that the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class hold does not hold.; sent2 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the tiglon does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tiglon is not tangible.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.

If the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right, something is not tangible.

there is something such that it does not bed-hop.

the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect.

sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia.

¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

something is not a cellar.

(Ex): ¬{GK}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the tiglon is not tangible is not wrong if the fact that the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class hold does not hold.; sent2 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the tiglon does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tiglon is not tangible.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.

If the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right, then something is not tangible.

the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect.

the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect.

sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia.

¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

something is not a cellar.

(Ex): ¬{GK}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the collation is not a kind of a Niamey or it is not tangible or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a dissociation if it does not frog spearhead and it is a goalmouth. sent2: there is something such that it does not bed-hop. sent3: the ozone does not frog spearhead but it is a goalmouth if it is a cyprinid. sent4: something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right. sent5: if the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber then it is not elementary and it does not base. sent6: if something that is not a MANPAD is not a kind of a Tobagonian then it is not a kind of a Niamey. sent7: the ozone is a kind of a cyprinid if the infant's-breath is a cyprinid. sent8: if the phycoerythrin is not elementary and not a base then the infant's-breath is a kind of a cyprinid. sent9: something is both not a MANPAD and not Tobagonian if it is a dissociation. sent10: something is not a keyboardist but it is not intangible if it is not a Niamey. sent11: the fact that the tiglon bed-hops and is upper-class is not correct if there exists something such that that it does not bed-hops is not incorrect. sent12: that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible. sent13: the phycoerythrin is both a ribbonwood and a kalmia. sent14: if something is both not a keyboardist and tangible the collation is not a cellar. sent15: the phycoerythrin is not .45-caliber if it is a kind of a ribbonwood that is a kalmia. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the tiglon is not tangible is not wrong if the fact that the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class hold does not hold.; sent2 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the tiglon does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the tiglon is not tangible.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not tangible if the fact that it does bed-hop and is upper-class is not right.

It is not tangible if it does bed-hop and is upper-class.

that the collation is not a Niamey or it is not tangible or both does not hold if the tiglon is not tangible.

that the argus is a adjuvant is not incorrect.

sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is not extinct and/or it does not exercise alphabetization does not hold then the argus is a kind of a adjuvant. sent2: the godparent is not a bribery. sent3: the fact that the argus is autobiographical if the argus is not a adjuvant is not incorrect. sent4: the romanticist is a kind of non-uncharacteristic thing that frogs Shakespeare. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a adjuvant and/or it is not extinct is not wrong is false then the argus is a bribery. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a bribery or it is not extinct or both is right is false. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tessera and it is a kind of a thebe does not hold then the midiron is a kind of a tessera. sent8: the argus is not a beanball. sent9: the fact that the argus is a bribery is not incorrect. sent10: the fact that something is not arsenical if the fact that it is not a Soma and not a beanball is wrong is true. sent11: if something is not uncharacteristic then the fact that it is not a kind of a tessera and it is a thebe is incorrect. sent12: the fact that the F is not a Soma and not a beanball is not right if the midiron is a tessera. sent13: if the F is non-arsenical the fact that the godparent is a adjuvant and is not a kind of a bribery is wrong.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the jackal is not a kind of a bribery and/or it does not encourage is wrong.

¬(¬{A}{fn} v ¬{IN}{fn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the argus is a adjuvant is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is not extinct and/or it does not exercise alphabetization does not hold then the argus is a kind of a adjuvant. sent2: the godparent is not a bribery. sent3: the fact that the argus is autobiographical if the argus is not a adjuvant is not incorrect. sent4: the romanticist is a kind of non-uncharacteristic thing that frogs Shakespeare. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is a adjuvant and/or it is not extinct is not wrong is false then the argus is a bribery. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not a bribery or it is not extinct or both is right is false. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a tessera and it is a kind of a thebe does not hold then the midiron is a kind of a tessera. sent8: the argus is not a beanball. sent9: the fact that the argus is a bribery is not incorrect. sent10: the fact that something is not arsenical if the fact that it is not a Soma and not a beanball is wrong is true. sent11: if something is not uncharacteristic then the fact that it is not a kind of a tessera and it is a thebe is incorrect. sent12: the fact that the F is not a Soma and not a beanball is not right if the midiron is a tessera. sent13: if the F is non-arsenical the fact that the godparent is a adjuvant and is not a kind of a bribery is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the F is not a Soma and not a beanball is not right if the midiron is a tessera.

the fact that the F is not a Soma and not a beanball is not right if the midiron is a tessera.

the fact that the argus is a bribery is not incorrect.

the appointee does backhand.

sent1: if the appointee does not exercise coagulant but it is fractional it is not a kind of a backhand. sent2: the fluff does not exercise coagulant if the appointee is a kind of a dermatologist and it does backhand. sent3: the appointee is not a kind of a backhand if it does exercise coagulant and it is non-fractional. sent4: if the ephedrine is not statistical the appointee does backhand but it is not a dermatologist. sent5: if something is not a thysanopter and it is not a sluice it is not statistical. sent6: that the appointee is not non-statistical and is a kind of a dermatologist if there exists something such that it is not a thysanopter hold. sent7: something backhands but it is not a sluice if it is a kind of a reliance. sent8: the appointee does not exercise coagulant and is not fractional. sent9: if the appointee does not exercise coagulant and it is not fractional then it is not backhand. sent10: if something that is not a kind of a slick is not unafraid then the ephedrine is not a thysanopter. sent11: the saddlery is not modifiable and it is not a kind of a backhand. sent12: the topaz is not a slick and not unafraid.

{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fluff does not exercise coagulant.

¬{AA}{ee}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the appointee does backhand. ; $context$ = sent1: if the appointee does not exercise coagulant but it is fractional it is not a kind of a backhand. sent2: the fluff does not exercise coagulant if the appointee is a kind of a dermatologist and it does backhand. sent3: the appointee is not a kind of a backhand if it does exercise coagulant and it is non-fractional. sent4: if the ephedrine is not statistical the appointee does backhand but it is not a dermatologist. sent5: if something is not a thysanopter and it is not a sluice it is not statistical. sent6: that the appointee is not non-statistical and is a kind of a dermatologist if there exists something such that it is not a thysanopter hold. sent7: something backhands but it is not a sluice if it is a kind of a reliance. sent8: the appointee does not exercise coagulant and is not fractional. sent9: if the appointee does not exercise coagulant and it is not fractional then it is not backhand. sent10: if something that is not a kind of a slick is not unafraid then the ephedrine is not a thysanopter. sent11: the saddlery is not modifiable and it is not a kind of a backhand. sent12: the topaz is not a slick and not unafraid. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the appointee does not exercise coagulant and it is not fractional then it is not backhand.

if the appointee does not exercise coagulant and it is not fractional then it is not backhand.

the appointee does not exercise coagulant and is not fractional.

the tattooing occurs.

sent1: the peripateticness happens. sent2: the instrumenting does not occur and the gemmiferousness occurs. sent3: the overwork occurs. sent4: if the disjunctiveness occurs then the bulging happens. sent5: the variolarness happens if the craft occurs. sent6: if the Nativity occurs then the frogging classic happens. sent7: that the crafting does not occur but the tattoo occurs is incorrect if the abscondment does not occur. sent8: that the abscondment does not occur is right. sent9: if the fullback occurs then the Frost occurs. sent10: the exercising compass happens if the creeping hackee happens. sent11: the Syrianness occurs. sent12: not the abscondment but the crafting happens. sent13: the jumbling is brought about by that the avalanche occurs. sent14: the non-carangidness causes the frogging summary. sent15: if the variolarness occurs then the tattoo happens. sent16: if the frogging summary happens the abscondment does not occur and the variolarness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the patellarness occurs is not false. sent18: the frogging brittlebush happens. sent19: if the thirstiness occurs then that the jumble happens is right. sent20: the semiparasiticness occurs. sent21: the fact that the self-fulfillment occurs hold. sent22: if the pugilisticness happens the surrender occurs.

{D}

sent1: {DP} sent2: (¬{FE} & {U}) sent3: {FN} sent4: {BK} -> {BJ} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: {GK} -> {JB} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & {D}) sent8: ¬{A} sent9: {AK} -> {CR} sent10: {AM} -> {CL} sent11: {FK} sent12: (¬{A} & {B}) sent13: {GE} -> {BI} sent14: ¬{F} -> {E} sent15: {C} -> {D} sent16: {E} -> (¬{A} & ¬{C}) sent17: {BD} sent18: {CO} sent19: {BR} -> {BI} sent20: {GA} sent21: {CT} sent22: {BB} -> {IH}

PROVED

PROVED

the tattoo does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tattooing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the peripateticness happens. sent2: the instrumenting does not occur and the gemmiferousness occurs. sent3: the overwork occurs. sent4: if the disjunctiveness occurs then the bulging happens. sent5: the variolarness happens if the craft occurs. sent6: if the Nativity occurs then the frogging classic happens. sent7: that the crafting does not occur but the tattoo occurs is incorrect if the abscondment does not occur. sent8: that the abscondment does not occur is right. sent9: if the fullback occurs then the Frost occurs. sent10: the exercising compass happens if the creeping hackee happens. sent11: the Syrianness occurs. sent12: not the abscondment but the crafting happens. sent13: the jumbling is brought about by that the avalanche occurs. sent14: the non-carangidness causes the frogging summary. sent15: if the variolarness occurs then the tattoo happens. sent16: if the frogging summary happens the abscondment does not occur and the variolarness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the patellarness occurs is not false. sent18: the frogging brittlebush happens. sent19: if the thirstiness occurs then that the jumble happens is right. sent20: the semiparasiticness occurs. sent21: the fact that the self-fulfillment occurs hold. sent22: if the pugilisticness happens the surrender occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: the craft happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the variolarness happens.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the abscondment but the crafting happens.

The crafting happens.

the variolarness happens if the craft occurs.

the tattooing occurs.

sent1: the peripateticness happens. sent2: the instrumenting does not occur and the gemmiferousness occurs. sent3: the overwork occurs. sent4: if the disjunctiveness occurs then the bulging happens. sent5: the variolarness happens if the craft occurs. sent6: if the Nativity occurs then the frogging classic happens. sent7: that the crafting does not occur but the tattoo occurs is incorrect if the abscondment does not occur. sent8: that the abscondment does not occur is right. sent9: if the fullback occurs then the Frost occurs. sent10: the exercising compass happens if the creeping hackee happens. sent11: the Syrianness occurs. sent12: not the abscondment but the crafting happens. sent13: the jumbling is brought about by that the avalanche occurs. sent14: the non-carangidness causes the frogging summary. sent15: if the variolarness occurs then the tattoo happens. sent16: if the frogging summary happens the abscondment does not occur and the variolarness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the patellarness occurs is not false. sent18: the frogging brittlebush happens. sent19: if the thirstiness occurs then that the jumble happens is right. sent20: the semiparasiticness occurs. sent21: the fact that the self-fulfillment occurs hold. sent22: if the pugilisticness happens the surrender occurs.

{D}

sent1: {DP} sent2: (¬{FE} & {U}) sent3: {FN} sent4: {BK} -> {BJ} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: {GK} -> {JB} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & {D}) sent8: ¬{A} sent9: {AK} -> {CR} sent10: {AM} -> {CL} sent11: {FK} sent12: (¬{A} & {B}) sent13: {GE} -> {BI} sent14: ¬{F} -> {E} sent15: {C} -> {D} sent16: {E} -> (¬{A} & ¬{C}) sent17: {BD} sent18: {CO} sent19: {BR} -> {BI} sent20: {GA} sent21: {CT} sent22: {BB} -> {IH}

PROVED

PROVED

the tattoo does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tattooing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the peripateticness happens. sent2: the instrumenting does not occur and the gemmiferousness occurs. sent3: the overwork occurs. sent4: if the disjunctiveness occurs then the bulging happens. sent5: the variolarness happens if the craft occurs. sent6: if the Nativity occurs then the frogging classic happens. sent7: that the crafting does not occur but the tattoo occurs is incorrect if the abscondment does not occur. sent8: that the abscondment does not occur is right. sent9: if the fullback occurs then the Frost occurs. sent10: the exercising compass happens if the creeping hackee happens. sent11: the Syrianness occurs. sent12: not the abscondment but the crafting happens. sent13: the jumbling is brought about by that the avalanche occurs. sent14: the non-carangidness causes the frogging summary. sent15: if the variolarness occurs then the tattoo happens. sent16: if the frogging summary happens the abscondment does not occur and the variolarness does not occur. sent17: the fact that the patellarness occurs is not false. sent18: the frogging brittlebush happens. sent19: if the thirstiness occurs then that the jumble happens is right. sent20: the semiparasiticness occurs. sent21: the fact that the self-fulfillment occurs hold. sent22: if the pugilisticness happens the surrender occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: the craft happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the variolarness happens.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the abscondment but the crafting happens.

The crafting happens, not the escape.

if the variolarness occurs then the tattoo happens.

the Nahuatl is capable.

sent1: something is not capable if it is nonechoic and it does exercise liberty. sent2: the Nahuatl is nonechoic thing that does exercise liberty. sent3: if something is catabolic and it is a levorotation that it does not sour hold. sent4: the Nahuatl does exercise liberty.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ({BJ}x & {GU}x) -> ¬{CF}x sent4: {AB}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

if the collation is catabolic thing that is a kind of a levorotation it is not a kind of a sour.

({BJ}{cl} & {GU}{cl}) -> ¬{CF}{cl}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Nahuatl is capable. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not capable if it is nonechoic and it does exercise liberty. sent2: the Nahuatl is nonechoic thing that does exercise liberty. sent3: if something is catabolic and it is a levorotation that it does not sour hold. sent4: the Nahuatl does exercise liberty. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the Nahuatl is not capable if it is nonechoic and exercises liberty.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not capable if it is nonechoic and it does exercise liberty.

something is not capable if it is nonechoic and it does exercise liberty.

the Nahuatl is nonechoic thing that does exercise liberty.

the plethysmograph is a anticipator.

sent1: that something is a kind of a anticipator if the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a kind of a anticipator is not correct is not false. sent2: if the plethysmograph does frog bracket then the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent3: the fact that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz does not hold if it closes locksmith. sent4: that the plethysmograph is both a waltz and not a anticipator is not true. sent5: The fact that the locksmith does close oxazepam is not false. sent6: if that the tangor is scrotal is not false then that it welters and is not a anticipator is wrong. sent7: if the plethysmograph closes locksmith the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent8: the fact that the oxazepam does close locksmith is not false. sent9: the oxazepam is a Taylor. sent10: the fact that the sari is not macromolecular and it is not a Tennyson is not right. sent11: if something does not close oxazepam the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a anticipator is false. sent12: the kale is a waltz. sent13: the oxazepam is not a waltz. sent14: the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator. sent15: the fact that the plethysmograph is a anticipator and it waltzes is wrong. sent16: if the oxazepam does waltz the plethysmograph is a anticipator and does not close locksmith. sent17: if the plethysmograph is a waltz then the oxazepam does close locksmith but it is not a anticipator. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not macromolecular and is not a kind of a Tennyson is not right the oxazepam is a Tennyson. sent19: the fact that the Clydesdale is a brachycephalic and it does close adulteress is not correct.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {A}x sent2: {AA}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: {AC}{aa} sent6: {CL}{jd} -> ¬({HQ}{jd} & ¬{A}{jd}) sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {B}{b} sent9: {IJ}{b} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: {AB}{ie} sent13: ¬{AB}{b} sent14: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent15: ¬({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: {AB}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: {AB}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}{b} sent19: ¬({GM}{cd} & {AE}{cd})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the plethysmograph is a kind of a anticipator.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plethysmograph is a anticipator. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of a anticipator if the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a kind of a anticipator is not correct is not false. sent2: if the plethysmograph does frog bracket then the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent3: the fact that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz does not hold if it closes locksmith. sent4: that the plethysmograph is both a waltz and not a anticipator is not true. sent5: The fact that the locksmith does close oxazepam is not false. sent6: if that the tangor is scrotal is not false then that it welters and is not a anticipator is wrong. sent7: if the plethysmograph closes locksmith the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent8: the fact that the oxazepam does close locksmith is not false. sent9: the oxazepam is a Taylor. sent10: the fact that the sari is not macromolecular and it is not a Tennyson is not right. sent11: if something does not close oxazepam the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a anticipator is false. sent12: the kale is a waltz. sent13: the oxazepam is not a waltz. sent14: the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator. sent15: the fact that the plethysmograph is a anticipator and it waltzes is wrong. sent16: if the oxazepam does waltz the plethysmograph is a anticipator and does not close locksmith. sent17: if the plethysmograph is a waltz then the oxazepam does close locksmith but it is not a anticipator. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not macromolecular and is not a kind of a Tennyson is not right the oxazepam is a Tennyson. sent19: the fact that the Clydesdale is a brachycephalic and it does close adulteress is not correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the plethysmograph is a anticipator.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the oxazepam does frog bracket and is not a waltz.; sent3 & sent8 -> int2: that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator.

If the plethysmograph is a anticipator, the 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846

the fact that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz does not hold if it closes locksmith.

the plethysmograph is a anticipator.

sent1: that something is a kind of a anticipator if the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a kind of a anticipator is not correct is not false. sent2: if the plethysmograph does frog bracket then the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent3: the fact that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz does not hold if it closes locksmith. sent4: that the plethysmograph is both a waltz and not a anticipator is not true. sent5: The fact that the locksmith does close oxazepam is not false. sent6: if that the tangor is scrotal is not false then that it welters and is not a anticipator is wrong. sent7: if the plethysmograph closes locksmith the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent8: the fact that the oxazepam does close locksmith is not false. sent9: the oxazepam is a Taylor. sent10: the fact that the sari is not macromolecular and it is not a Tennyson is not right. sent11: if something does not close oxazepam the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a anticipator is false. sent12: the kale is a waltz. sent13: the oxazepam is not a waltz. sent14: the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator. sent15: the fact that the plethysmograph is a anticipator and it waltzes is wrong. sent16: if the oxazepam does waltz the plethysmograph is a anticipator and does not close locksmith. sent17: if the plethysmograph is a waltz then the oxazepam does close locksmith but it is not a anticipator. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not macromolecular and is not a kind of a Tennyson is not right the oxazepam is a Tennyson. sent19: the fact that the Clydesdale is a brachycephalic and it does close adulteress is not correct.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {A}x sent2: {AA}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: {AC}{aa} sent6: {CL}{jd} -> ¬({HQ}{jd} & ¬{A}{jd}) sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {B}{b} sent9: {IJ}{b} sent10: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: {AB}{ie} sent13: ¬{AB}{b} sent14: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent15: ¬({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: {AB}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: {AB}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}{b} sent19: ¬({GM}{cd} & {AE}{cd})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the plethysmograph is a kind of a anticipator.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plethysmograph is a anticipator. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of a anticipator if the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a kind of a anticipator is not correct is not false. sent2: if the plethysmograph does frog bracket then the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent3: the fact that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz does not hold if it closes locksmith. sent4: that the plethysmograph is both a waltz and not a anticipator is not true. sent5: The fact that the locksmith does close oxazepam is not false. sent6: if that the tangor is scrotal is not false then that it welters and is not a anticipator is wrong. sent7: if the plethysmograph closes locksmith the oxazepam is not a anticipator. sent8: the fact that the oxazepam does close locksmith is not false. sent9: the oxazepam is a Taylor. sent10: the fact that the sari is not macromolecular and it is not a Tennyson is not right. sent11: if something does not close oxazepam the fact that it does not close locksmith and it is not a anticipator is false. sent12: the kale is a waltz. sent13: the oxazepam is not a waltz. sent14: the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator. sent15: the fact that the plethysmograph is a anticipator and it waltzes is wrong. sent16: if the oxazepam does waltz the plethysmograph is a anticipator and does not close locksmith. sent17: if the plethysmograph is a waltz then the oxazepam does close locksmith but it is not a anticipator. sent18: if there exists something such that that it is not macromolecular and is not a kind of a Tennyson is not right the oxazepam is a Tennyson. sent19: the fact that the Clydesdale is a brachycephalic and it does close adulteress is not correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the plethysmograph is a anticipator.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the oxazepam does frog bracket and is not a waltz.; sent3 & sent8 -> int2: that the oxazepam frogs bracket but it is not a kind of a waltz is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the oxazepam frogs bracket and is not a waltz if the plethysmograph is a anticipator.

If the plethysmograph is a anticipator, the 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846 888-666-1846

the fact that the oxazepam does close locksmith is not false.

the die does not frog welt.

sent1: if there is something such that that it is not apologetic or not septic or both is not right the forty-five is not cacodemonic. sent2: the welt is not a nonpartisan or it douses or both if the termination does not close examen. sent3: the die is not a graphite if the thylacine does frog Trollius and it is a contrast. sent4: if the thylacine is not a kind of a contrast the die frogs welt and it frogs Trollius. sent5: the die does not frog welt if it is not a graphite. sent6: if the forty-five is not cacodemonic then the Freudian is a graphite and it is important. sent7: if something either is not nonpartisan or douses or both then it is a lights-out. sent8: if that the lumberyard is both not a graphite and not a contrast is not true then the thylacine is not a kind of a contrast. sent9: if the fact that the thylacine does not frog Trollius and it is not a contrast does not hold the fact that the collation is a contrast is correct. sent10: the thylacine is a kind of a contrast. sent11: that the termination does not close examen is not incorrect. sent12: that the welt is either not apologetic or not septic or both is false if it is a lights-out. sent13: The Trollius does frog thylacine.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the collation contrasts and it is a reverse.

({B}{hl} & {GA}{hl})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the die does not frog welt. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it is not apologetic or not septic or both is not right the forty-five is not cacodemonic. sent2: the welt is not a nonpartisan or it douses or both if the termination does not close examen. sent3: the die is not a graphite if the thylacine does frog Trollius and it is a contrast. sent4: if the thylacine is not a kind of a contrast the die frogs welt and it frogs Trollius. sent5: the die does not frog welt if it is not a graphite. sent6: if the forty-five is not cacodemonic then the Freudian is a graphite and it is important. sent7: if something either is not nonpartisan or douses or both then it is a lights-out. sent8: if that the lumberyard is both not a graphite and not a contrast is not true then the thylacine is not a kind of a contrast. sent9: if the fact that the thylacine does not frog Trollius and it is not a contrast does not hold the fact that the collation is a contrast is correct. sent10: the thylacine is a kind of a contrast. sent11: that the termination does not close examen is not incorrect. sent12: that the welt is either not apologetic or not septic or both is false if it is a lights-out. sent13: The Trollius does frog thylacine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something either is not nonpartisan or douses or both then it is a lights-out.

if something either is not nonpartisan or douses or both then it is a lights-out.

if there is something such that that it is not apologetic or not septic or both is not right the forty-five is not cacodemonic.

the bunter frogs amine.

sent1: the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent2: the barrette does not frog detractor if that it is not a laceration and it is not dorsal is not right. sent3: if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago. sent4: something is tuberculate if it creeps Pritzelago. sent5: the amine squishes. sent6: if the amine is a kind of non-tuberculate thing that does not creep Pritzelago the bunter does frog amine. sent7: if something is tuberculate then it does frog amine. sent8: the bunter does not creep Pritzelago. sent9: if the barrette is a itraconazole that does not creep Pritzelago then the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent10: the amine is tuberculate. sent11: the barrette is tuberculate. sent12: the fact that the scheduler does frog amine hold. sent13: that the amine is a Ameiuridae is right. sent14: the bunter does not frog amine if there exists something such that it creeps Pritzelago. sent15: that if something does not frog detractor then that it is a itraconazole and it does not creep Pritzelago is right hold. sent16: the barrette frogs amine if the bunter does creep Pritzelago.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bunter frogs amine.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bunter frogs amine. ; $context$ = sent1: the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent2: the barrette does not frog detractor if that it is not a laceration and it is not dorsal is not right. sent3: if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago. sent4: something is tuberculate if it creeps Pritzelago. sent5: the amine squishes. sent6: if the amine is a kind of non-tuberculate thing that does not creep Pritzelago the bunter does frog amine. sent7: if something is tuberculate then it does frog amine. sent8: the bunter does not creep Pritzelago. sent9: if the barrette is a itraconazole that does not creep Pritzelago then the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent10: the amine is tuberculate. sent11: the barrette is tuberculate. sent12: the fact that the scheduler does frog amine hold. sent13: that the amine is a Ameiuridae is right. sent14: the bunter does not frog amine if there exists something such that it creeps Pritzelago. sent15: that if something does not frog detractor then that it is a itraconazole and it does not creep Pritzelago is right hold. sent16: the barrette frogs amine if the bunter does creep Pritzelago. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the barrette creeps Pritzelago.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it does creep Pritzelago.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago.

The barrette creeps Pritzelago if the amine is tuberculate.

the amine is tuberculate.

the bunter frogs amine.

sent1: the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent2: the barrette does not frog detractor if that it is not a laceration and it is not dorsal is not right. sent3: if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago. sent4: something is tuberculate if it creeps Pritzelago. sent5: the amine squishes. sent6: if the amine is a kind of non-tuberculate thing that does not creep Pritzelago the bunter does frog amine. sent7: if something is tuberculate then it does frog amine. sent8: the bunter does not creep Pritzelago. sent9: if the barrette is a itraconazole that does not creep Pritzelago then the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent10: the amine is tuberculate. sent11: the barrette is tuberculate. sent12: the fact that the scheduler does frog amine hold. sent13: that the amine is a Ameiuridae is right. sent14: the bunter does not frog amine if there exists something such that it creeps Pritzelago. sent15: that if something does not frog detractor then that it is a itraconazole and it does not creep Pritzelago is right hold. sent16: the barrette frogs amine if the bunter does creep Pritzelago.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bunter frogs amine.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bunter frogs amine. ; $context$ = sent1: the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent2: the barrette does not frog detractor if that it is not a laceration and it is not dorsal is not right. sent3: if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago. sent4: something is tuberculate if it creeps Pritzelago. sent5: the amine squishes. sent6: if the amine is a kind of non-tuberculate thing that does not creep Pritzelago the bunter does frog amine. sent7: if something is tuberculate then it does frog amine. sent8: the bunter does not creep Pritzelago. sent9: if the barrette is a itraconazole that does not creep Pritzelago then the amine does not creep Pritzelago. sent10: the amine is tuberculate. sent11: the barrette is tuberculate. sent12: the fact that the scheduler does frog amine hold. sent13: that the amine is a Ameiuridae is right. sent14: the bunter does not frog amine if there exists something such that it creeps Pritzelago. sent15: that if something does not frog detractor then that it is a itraconazole and it does not creep Pritzelago is right hold. sent16: the barrette frogs amine if the bunter does creep Pritzelago. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the barrette creeps Pritzelago.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it does creep Pritzelago.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the amine is tuberculate the barrette does creep Pritzelago.

It is possible that the barrette creeps Pritzelago if the amine is tuberculate.

the bunter does not frog amine if there exists something such that it creeps Pritzelago.

the entreaty occurs.

sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({IO} & {FK}) -> ¬{CI} sent4: {DT} -> {DF} sent5: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ({A} v {B}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: ({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {A} -> {E}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the entreaty happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the entreaty occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the inclusion happens.; sent8 -> int2: the anaphasicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the inclusion and the anaphasicness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens.

The closingAAA happens or the exercising fascination happens.

the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens.

the entreaty occurs.

sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({IO} & {FK}) -> ¬{CI} sent4: {DT} -> {DF} sent5: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ({A} v {B}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: ({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {A} -> {E}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the entreaty happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the entreaty occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the inclusion happens.; sent8 -> int2: the anaphasicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the inclusion and the anaphasicness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens.

The closing ofAAA happens or the exercising fascination happens.

the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs.

the entreaty occurs.

sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({IO} & {FK}) -> ¬{CI} sent4: {DT} -> {DF} sent5: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ({A} v {B}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: ({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {A} -> {E}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the entreaty happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the entreaty occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the inclusion happens.; sent8 -> int2: the anaphasicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the inclusion and the anaphasicness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens.

The closing ofAAA occurs or the exercising fascination occurs.

that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true.

the entreaty occurs.

sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({IO} & {FK}) -> ¬{CI} sent4: {DT} -> {DF} sent5: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{E} sent6: ({A} v {B}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: ({D} & ¬{F}) sent9: {A} -> {E}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the entreaty happens.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the entreaty occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the inclusion happens if the exercising fascination happens. sent2: the inclusion occurs if the closing AAA occurs. sent3: that both the upstart and the creeping compass occurs triggers the unambitiousness. sent4: if the cavalcade happens the Procrusteanness happens. sent5: that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur. sent6: the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens. sent7: the fact that the evanescing does not occur is not wrong. sent8: that the anaphasicness but not the evanescing happens is true. sent9: if the exercising fascination occurs then the entreaty occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the inclusion happens.; sent8 -> int2: the anaphasicness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the inclusion and the anaphasicness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the exercising fascination happens and/or the closing AAA happens.

The closing ofAAA happens.

that the inclusion occurs and the anaphasicness occurs results in that the entreaty does not occur.

that the lunatic is not a Andersen and does frog namer does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the theurgy is holographic and frogs namer is false. sent2: the manglietia is not homeopathic if there is something such that that it is both holographic and high-resolution does not hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Andersen and it frogs namer is wrong. sent4: the theurgy does not frog namer but it is holographic. sent5: the theurgy does not frog namer if there exists something such that that it is homeopathic and it is not non-holographic is false. sent6: the tolazamide does not suffice if that it frogs namer and it is not homeopathic is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Silverstein and styleless is not correct. sent8: the fact that the tolazamide does frog namer and is not homeopathic is not correct if it is not basilar. sent9: the fact that the theurgy is not homeopathic hold if there exists something such that that it is holographic and it frogs namer is false. sent10: the manglietia is not homeopathic if something is not holographic. sent11: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic does frog namer. sent12: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic is not a kind of a Andersen and does frog namer. sent13: the lunatic does frog namer. sent14: the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true. sent15: the fact that the theurgy is high-resolution and it is a kind of a Andersen does not hold. sent16: something is holographic and is high-resolution.

¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{B}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: ¬({B}{j} & ¬{A}{j}) -> ¬{N}{j} sent7: (Ex): ¬({IQ}x & {DC}x) sent8: ¬{E}{j} -> ¬({B}{j} & ¬{A}{j}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: {B}{b} sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬({AB}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the tolazamide does not suffice and is Napoleonic.

(¬{N}{j} & {HM}{j})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lunatic is not a Andersen and does frog namer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the theurgy is holographic and frogs namer is false. sent2: the manglietia is not homeopathic if there is something such that that it is both holographic and high-resolution does not hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Andersen and it frogs namer is wrong. sent4: the theurgy does not frog namer but it is holographic. sent5: the theurgy does not frog namer if there exists something such that that it is homeopathic and it is not non-holographic is false. sent6: the tolazamide does not suffice if that it frogs namer and it is not homeopathic is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Silverstein and styleless is not correct. sent8: the fact that the tolazamide does frog namer and is not homeopathic is not correct if it is not basilar. sent9: the fact that the theurgy is not homeopathic hold if there exists something such that that it is holographic and it frogs namer is false. sent10: the manglietia is not homeopathic if something is not holographic. sent11: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic does frog namer. sent12: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic is not a kind of a Andersen and does frog namer. sent13: the lunatic does frog namer. sent14: the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true. sent15: the fact that the theurgy is high-resolution and it is a kind of a Andersen does not hold. sent16: something is holographic and is high-resolution. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is both holographic and not non-high-resolution is not correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the manglietia is not homeopathic.; sent12 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true.

The fact that the theurgy is both high-resolution and hologram is not true.

the manglietia is not homeopathic if there is something such that that it is both holographic and high-resolution does not hold.

that the lunatic is not a Andersen and does frog namer does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the theurgy is holographic and frogs namer is false. sent2: the manglietia is not homeopathic if there is something such that that it is both holographic and high-resolution does not hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Andersen and it frogs namer is wrong. sent4: the theurgy does not frog namer but it is holographic. sent5: the theurgy does not frog namer if there exists something such that that it is homeopathic and it is not non-holographic is false. sent6: the tolazamide does not suffice if that it frogs namer and it is not homeopathic is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Silverstein and styleless is not correct. sent8: the fact that the tolazamide does frog namer and is not homeopathic is not correct if it is not basilar. sent9: the fact that the theurgy is not homeopathic hold if there exists something such that that it is holographic and it frogs namer is false. sent10: the manglietia is not homeopathic if something is not holographic. sent11: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic does frog namer. sent12: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic is not a kind of a Andersen and does frog namer. sent13: the lunatic does frog namer. sent14: the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true. sent15: the fact that the theurgy is high-resolution and it is a kind of a Andersen does not hold. sent16: something is holographic and is high-resolution.

¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{B}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: ¬({B}{j} & ¬{A}{j}) -> ¬{N}{j} sent7: (Ex): ¬({IQ}x & {DC}x) sent8: ¬{E}{j} -> ¬({B}{j} & ¬{A}{j}) sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: {B}{b} sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬({AB}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the tolazamide does not suffice and is Napoleonic.

(¬{N}{j} & {HM}{j})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lunatic is not a Andersen and does frog namer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the theurgy is holographic and frogs namer is false. sent2: the manglietia is not homeopathic if there is something such that that it is both holographic and high-resolution does not hold. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Andersen and it frogs namer is wrong. sent4: the theurgy does not frog namer but it is holographic. sent5: the theurgy does not frog namer if there exists something such that that it is homeopathic and it is not non-holographic is false. sent6: the tolazamide does not suffice if that it frogs namer and it is not homeopathic is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Silverstein and styleless is not correct. sent8: the fact that the tolazamide does frog namer and is not homeopathic is not correct if it is not basilar. sent9: the fact that the theurgy is not homeopathic hold if there exists something such that that it is holographic and it frogs namer is false. sent10: the manglietia is not homeopathic if something is not holographic. sent11: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic does frog namer. sent12: if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic is not a kind of a Andersen and does frog namer. sent13: the lunatic does frog namer. sent14: the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true. sent15: the fact that the theurgy is high-resolution and it is a kind of a Andersen does not hold. sent16: something is holographic and is high-resolution. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is both holographic and not non-high-resolution is not correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the manglietia is not homeopathic.; sent12 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the theurgy is both holographic and high-resolution is not true.

It is not true that the theurgy is both high-resolution and hologram-like.

if the manglietia is not homeopathic the lunatic is not a kind of a Andersen and does frog namer.

that the Salian is not semantic but a SACLANT is not right.

sent1: if the amine is a plesiosaur the dill is a kind of a SACLANT. sent2: if the dill is a SACLANT then the Salian is a SACLANT. sent3: if the dill does not arrive the aerospace is a catmint and does close Vesey. sent4: the fact that the pyrites is semantic and does not close Vesey is wrong if it is not a kind of a catmint. sent5: if the dill is a kind of a plesiosaur then the Salian is a kind of a plesiosaur. sent6: the Salian is not semantic if there exists something such that that it is semantic and it does not close Vesey is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the Salian is a kind of semantic a SACLANT is not right is not wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a volcano then the parthenote is a kind of a camp that is not a kind of a catmint. sent9: the pyrites is not a catmint if the parthenote camps but it is not a kind of a catmint. sent10: that the dill is not a plesiosaur but it is a SACLANT is wrong. sent11: the microscope does not frog candlestick. sent12: everything is a volcano. sent13: something does not arrive if it is not a Dasyproctidae and it does not camp. sent14: if there is something such that it is a kind of a volcano or it is unforgettable or both then the hookah is a volcano. sent15: the Salian is semantic if the dill is semantic. sent16: the dill is semantic if the Salian is semantic. sent17: the dill is a plesiosaur. sent18: the fact that something is both semantic and a SACLANT is not right if it is a plesiosaur. sent19: the microscope is a volcano or it is unforgettable or both if it does not frog candlestick. sent20: if the Salian is a plesiosaur then the fact that it is a kind of semantic thing that is a SACLANT is incorrect. sent21: the fact that something is not a rhesus but a plesiosaur is wrong if the fact that it does close Vesey hold.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Salian is not semantic but it is a SACLANT.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Salian is not semantic but a SACLANT is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the amine is a plesiosaur the dill is a kind of a SACLANT. sent2: if the dill is a SACLANT then the Salian is a SACLANT. sent3: if the dill does not arrive the aerospace is a catmint and does close Vesey. sent4: the fact that the pyrites is semantic and does not close Vesey is wrong if it is not a kind of a catmint. sent5: if the dill is a kind of a plesiosaur then the Salian is a kind of a plesiosaur. sent6: the Salian is not semantic if there exists something such that that it is semantic and it does not close Vesey is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the Salian is a kind of semantic a SACLANT is not right is not wrong. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a volcano then the parthenote is a kind of a camp that is not a kind of a catmint. sent9: the pyrites is not a catmint if the parthenote camps but it is not a kind of a catmint. sent10: that the dill is not a plesiosaur but it is a SACLANT is wrong. sent11: the microscope does not frog candlestick. sent12: everything is a volcano. sent13: something does not arrive if it is not a Dasyproctidae and it does not camp. sent14: if there is something such that it is a kind of a volcano or it is unforgettable or both then the hookah is a volcano. sent15: the Salian is semantic if the dill is semantic. sent16: the dill is semantic if the Salian is semantic. sent17: the dill is a plesiosaur. sent18: the fact that something is both semantic and a SACLANT is not right if it is a plesiosaur. sent19: the microscope is a volcano or it is unforgettable or both if it does not frog candlestick. sent20: if the Salian is a plesiosaur then the fact that it is a kind of semantic thing that is a SACLANT is incorrect. sent21: the fact that something is not a rhesus but a plesiosaur is wrong if the fact that it does close Vesey hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the dill is a kind of a plesiosaur then the Salian is a kind of a plesiosaur.

if the dill is a kind of a plesiosaur then the Salian is a kind of a plesiosaur.

the dill is a plesiosaur.

the click happens.

sent1: the creeping recall does not occur if the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is incorrect. sent2: if that the creeping recall does not occur is correct the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs. sent3: that the plagioclasticness does not occur if the fact that the endometrialness happens or the amoristicness occurs or both does not hold is not wrong. sent4: if the figurativeness does not occur then that the endometrialness happens and/or the amoristicness occurs is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is false if the plagioclasticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the chastity happens hold then the disfranchisement occurs. sent7: not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens. sent8: if the fact that the non-plagioclasticness and the non-amoristicness occurs is not correct the interposition does not occur. sent9: the creeping recall happens. sent10: the clicking occurs if the skydiving does not occur and the incapableness happens. sent11: if the homicide does not occur but the bractealness occurs then the exposure occurs. sent12: if the closing Restoration occurs the exercising interregnum happens. sent13: the closing Ambystomatidae does not occur and the figurativeness does not occur if the disfranchisement happens. sent14: the incapableness occurs. sent15: the closing express happens.

{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{CL} & {AL}) sent3: ¬({F} v {E}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} v {E}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} v ¬{B}) sent6: {J} -> {I} sent7: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent11: (¬{IS} & {DQ}) -> {DN} sent12: {GT} -> {BD} sent13: {I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent14: {AB} sent15: {AM}

PROVED

PROVED

the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs.

(¬{CL} & {AL})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the click happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the creeping recall does not occur if the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is incorrect. sent2: if that the creeping recall does not occur is correct the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs. sent3: that the plagioclasticness does not occur if the fact that the endometrialness happens or the amoristicness occurs or both does not hold is not wrong. sent4: if the figurativeness does not occur then that the endometrialness happens and/or the amoristicness occurs is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is false if the plagioclasticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the chastity happens hold then the disfranchisement occurs. sent7: not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens. sent8: if the fact that the non-plagioclasticness and the non-amoristicness occurs is not correct the interposition does not occur. sent9: the creeping recall happens. sent10: the clicking occurs if the skydiving does not occur and the incapableness happens. sent11: if the homicide does not occur but the bractealness occurs then the exposure occurs. sent12: if the closing Restoration occurs the exercising interregnum happens. sent13: the closing Ambystomatidae does not occur and the figurativeness does not occur if the disfranchisement happens. sent14: the incapableness occurs. sent15: the closing express happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: not the skydiving but the incapableness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens.

If the creeping recall happens, the incapableness occurs.

the creeping recall happens.

the click happens.

sent1: the creeping recall does not occur if the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is incorrect. sent2: if that the creeping recall does not occur is correct the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs. sent3: that the plagioclasticness does not occur if the fact that the endometrialness happens or the amoristicness occurs or both does not hold is not wrong. sent4: if the figurativeness does not occur then that the endometrialness happens and/or the amoristicness occurs is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is false if the plagioclasticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the chastity happens hold then the disfranchisement occurs. sent7: not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens. sent8: if the fact that the non-plagioclasticness and the non-amoristicness occurs is not correct the interposition does not occur. sent9: the creeping recall happens. sent10: the clicking occurs if the skydiving does not occur and the incapableness happens. sent11: if the homicide does not occur but the bractealness occurs then the exposure occurs. sent12: if the closing Restoration occurs the exercising interregnum happens. sent13: the closing Ambystomatidae does not occur and the figurativeness does not occur if the disfranchisement happens. sent14: the incapableness occurs. sent15: the closing express happens.

{B}

sent1: ¬(¬{C} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{CL} & {AL}) sent3: ¬({F} v {E}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} v {E}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} v ¬{B}) sent6: {J} -> {I} sent7: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {A} sent10: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent11: (¬{IS} & {DQ}) -> {DN} sent12: {GT} -> {BD} sent13: {I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent14: {AB} sent15: {AM}

PROVED

PROVED

the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs.

(¬{CL} & {AL})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the click happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the creeping recall does not occur if the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is incorrect. sent2: if that the creeping recall does not occur is correct the closing blastocoel does not occur but the designating occurs. sent3: that the plagioclasticness does not occur if the fact that the endometrialness happens or the amoristicness occurs or both does not hold is not wrong. sent4: if the figurativeness does not occur then that the endometrialness happens and/or the amoristicness occurs is incorrect. sent5: the fact that the interposition does not occur and/or the click does not occur is false if the plagioclasticness does not occur. sent6: if the fact that the chastity happens hold then the disfranchisement occurs. sent7: not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens. sent8: if the fact that the non-plagioclasticness and the non-amoristicness occurs is not correct the interposition does not occur. sent9: the creeping recall happens. sent10: the clicking occurs if the skydiving does not occur and the incapableness happens. sent11: if the homicide does not occur but the bractealness occurs then the exposure occurs. sent12: if the closing Restoration occurs the exercising interregnum happens. sent13: the closing Ambystomatidae does not occur and the figurativeness does not occur if the disfranchisement happens. sent14: the incapableness occurs. sent15: the closing express happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: not the skydiving but the incapableness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the skydiving but the incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens.

The incapableness occurs if the creeping recall happens.

the clicking occurs if the skydiving does not occur and the incapableness happens.

the chaja is a kind of a beeline.

sent1: if the A-line does exercise ammonium then the promycelium is a slashed. sent2: that the A-line is both a beeline and illogical does not hold. sent3: if the A-line does not exercise ammonium then the promycelium is illogical. sent4: the promycelium does not exercise ammonium if that the A-line is a slashed and illogical is not true. sent5: the chaja is a slashed. sent6: that the A-line is a kind of a slashed and it is illogical does not hold. sent7: the arcade is illogical if the fact that the A-line does not exercise ammonium and it is not a beeline is not true. sent8: the chaja does slash if the A-line is not a kind of a beeline. sent9: that the chaja is a beeline is not wrong if the arcade exercises ammonium. sent10: that the adultery is a kind of a Hordeum and it does close adenomegaly is false. sent11: the robe-de-chambre does not exercise ammonium. sent12: the A-line does exercise ammonium. sent13: if the arcade is not a slashed then the A-line does not exercise ammonium. sent14: if something does exercise ammonium but it is not an advocacy it is not a beeline. sent15: if something that does not exercise Casanova donates that it is not a kind of a shaft hold. sent16: everything does not exercise Casanova. sent17: the A-line is not a kind of a beeline.

{A}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the arcade is illogical.

{AB}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chaja is a kind of a beeline. ; $context$ = sent1: if the A-line does exercise ammonium then the promycelium is a slashed. sent2: that the A-line is both a beeline and illogical does not hold. sent3: if the A-line does not exercise ammonium then the promycelium is illogical. sent4: the promycelium does not exercise ammonium if that the A-line is a slashed and illogical is not true. sent5: the chaja is a slashed. sent6: that the A-line is a kind of a slashed and it is illogical does not hold. sent7: the arcade is illogical if the fact that the A-line does not exercise ammonium and it is not a beeline is not true. sent8: the chaja does slash if the A-line is not a kind of a beeline. sent9: that the chaja is a beeline is not wrong if the arcade exercises ammonium. sent10: that the adultery is a kind of a Hordeum and it does close adenomegaly is false. sent11: the robe-de-chambre does not exercise ammonium. sent12: the A-line does exercise ammonium. sent13: if the arcade is not a slashed then the A-line does not exercise ammonium. sent14: if something does exercise ammonium but it is not an advocacy it is not a beeline. sent15: if something that does not exercise Casanova donates that it is not a kind of a shaft hold. sent16: everything does not exercise Casanova. sent17: the A-line is not a kind of a beeline. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the promycelium does not exercise ammonium if that the A-line is a slashed and illogical is not true.

the promycelium does not exercise ammonium if that the A-line is a slashed and illogical is not true.

that the A-line is a kind of a slashed and it is illogical does not hold.

the fact that the closing exotherm and the tall happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the frogging Nabokov happens. sent2: the anatropousness occurs. sent3: if the flimsiness does not occur then that the closing exotherm occurs and the tallness occurs is wrong. sent4: the flimsiness happens. sent5: if the pedicuring happens then the frogging cardiomegaly happens. sent6: the closing exotherm happens if the flimsiness happens. sent7: the paring occurs. sent8: the puddling occurs. sent9: the velarness occurs. sent10: the Kabbalism occurs. sent11: the mumble occurs. sent12: the closing vandal and the sultriness happens.

({B} & {C})

sent1: {EA} sent2: {JK} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent4: {A} sent5: {AH} -> {FT} sent6: {A} -> {B} sent7: {DT} sent8: {G} sent9: {FM} sent10: {U} sent11: {CH} sent12: ({FN} & {AM})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the closing exotherm and the tall occurs is false.

¬({B} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the closing exotherm and the tall happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the frogging Nabokov happens. sent2: the anatropousness occurs. sent3: if the flimsiness does not occur then that the closing exotherm occurs and the tallness occurs is wrong. sent4: the flimsiness happens. sent5: if the pedicuring happens then the frogging cardiomegaly happens. sent6: the closing exotherm happens if the flimsiness happens. sent7: the paring occurs. sent8: the puddling occurs. sent9: the velarness occurs. sent10: the Kabbalism occurs. sent11: the mumble occurs. sent12: the closing vandal and the sultriness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the closing exotherm happens if the flimsiness happens.

the closing exotherm happens if the flimsiness happens.

the flimsiness happens.

the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor.

sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin.

({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {D}{b} sent2: {FQ}{b} sent3: {A}{dl} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent6: {ET}{b} sent7: {GJ}{a} sent8: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent9: {HR}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {C}{c} sent13: ({GH}{c} & {C}{c}) sent14: (x): (¬{E}x v {B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {A}{c} -> {D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the fact that the metalware is a oilskin and it is a Tudor is false is not false.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor. ; $context$ = sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable.

The sulfanilamide can be unsociable if it maps.

the sulfanilamide does map.

the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor.

sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin.

({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {D}{b} sent2: {FQ}{b} sent3: {A}{dl} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent6: {ET}{b} sent7: {GJ}{a} sent8: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent9: {HR}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {C}{c} sent13: ({GH}{c} & {C}{c}) sent14: (x): (¬{E}x v {B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {A}{c} -> {D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the fact that the metalware is a oilskin and it is a Tudor is false is not false.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor. ; $context$ = sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable.

If it maps, it's unsociable.

the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable.

the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor.

sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin.

({D}{c} & {E}{c})

sent1: {D}{b} sent2: {FQ}{b} sent3: {A}{dl} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent6: {ET}{b} sent7: {GJ}{a} sent8: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent9: {HR}{b} sent10: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {C}{c} sent13: ({GH}{c} & {C}{c}) sent14: (x): (¬{E}x v {B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: {A}{c} -> {D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the fact that the metalware is a oilskin and it is a Tudor is false is not false.

¬({D}{c} & {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the metalware is a oilskin and it is a kind of a Tudor. ; $context$ = sent1: the capsicum is a kind of a oilskin. sent2: the capsicum graphs. sent3: the neurobiologist is a mapping. sent4: the sulfanilamide does map. sent5: that something is a oilskin and a Tudor is wrong if it is not a mapping. sent6: the capsicum is palatial. sent7: the sulfanilamide is oneiric. sent8: if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin. sent9: that the capsicum is a kind of a WAC is not false. sent10: the capsicum is a nondevelopment if the sulfanilamide is not sociable. sent11: if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable. sent12: the metalware is a nondevelopment. sent13: the metalware is ergonomic and it is a nondevelopment. sent14: something that is not a Tudor and/or is unsociable is not a Tudor. sent15: if the metalware is a kind of a mapping then the sulfanilamide is a oilskin. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the sulfanilamide maps it is unsociable.

It is unsociable if the sulfanilamide maps.

if the fact that the capsicum is a nondevelopment is true the metalware is a oilskin.

the magnetosphere does not frog crepe.

sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect.

The fact that it is impersonal and not a bend is incorrect.

the bricklayer does exercise piccolo.

the magnetosphere does not frog crepe.

sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect.

The fact that the bricklayer is impersonal and not a kind of bend is incorrect.

the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true.

the magnetosphere does not frog crepe.

sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect.

The fact that the bricklayer is impersonal and not a bend is incorrect.

the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg.

the magnetosphere does not frog crepe.

sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the piccolo is not determinate but it is not Kantian is not right if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. sent2: that the quarters does exercise Antarctic and it is a facial is incorrect. sent3: the piccolo is a Cherbourg. sent4: the piccolo converges if the fact that the bricklayer is not personal but it does not bend is not true. sent5: The piccolo does exercise bricklayer. sent6: if the piccolo is Methodist and it does converge the magnetosphere does not frog crepe. sent7: the bricklayer does exercise piccolo. sent8: if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect. sent9: the piccolo frogs arbitrage. sent10: that the piccolo is a kind of indeterminate thing that is Kantian is incorrect if it is a kind of a Cherbourg. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo the fact that it is impersonal and is not a kind of a bend is incorrect.

The fact that it is impersonal and not a bend is incorrect, if the bricklayer does exercise piccolo.

the piccolo is a Cherbourg.

that the kat exercises armed and is a sushi does not hold.

sent1: that something does exercise armed and is a kind of a sushi is not right if it is not obtuse. sent2: the shingling is a sushi. sent3: everything does exercise crystallography. sent4: everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS. sent5: the kat is a physiotherapy if it is a sushi and not Hispaniolan. sent6: the kat does frog shingling. sent7: the kat is a kind of a sushi. sent8: the kat does exercise armed if it exercises crystallography and does not close PMS.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {B}{hj} sent3: (x): {AA}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ({B}{aa} & ¬{FO}{aa}) -> {HS}{aa} sent6: {U}{aa} sent7: {B}{aa} sent8: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the kat does exercise armed and it is a kind of a sushi is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the kat exercises armed and is a sushi does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does exercise armed and is a kind of a sushi is not right if it is not obtuse. sent2: the shingling is a sushi. sent3: everything does exercise crystallography. sent4: everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS. sent5: the kat is a physiotherapy if it is a sushi and not Hispaniolan. sent6: the kat does frog shingling. sent7: the kat is a kind of a sushi. sent8: the kat does exercise armed if it exercises crystallography and does not close PMS. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the kat exercises crystallography but it does not close PMS is right.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the kat exercises armed.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS.

Everything does exercise crystallography.

the kat does exercise armed if it exercises crystallography and does not close PMS.

that the kat exercises armed and is a sushi does not hold.

sent1: that something does exercise armed and is a kind of a sushi is not right if it is not obtuse. sent2: the shingling is a sushi. sent3: everything does exercise crystallography. sent4: everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS. sent5: the kat is a physiotherapy if it is a sushi and not Hispaniolan. sent6: the kat does frog shingling. sent7: the kat is a kind of a sushi. sent8: the kat does exercise armed if it exercises crystallography and does not close PMS.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {B}{hj} sent3: (x): {AA}x sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ({B}{aa} & ¬{FO}{aa}) -> {HS}{aa} sent6: {U}{aa} sent7: {B}{aa} sent8: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the kat does exercise armed and it is a kind of a sushi is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the kat exercises armed and is a sushi does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does exercise armed and is a kind of a sushi is not right if it is not obtuse. sent2: the shingling is a sushi. sent3: everything does exercise crystallography. sent4: everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS. sent5: the kat is a physiotherapy if it is a sushi and not Hispaniolan. sent6: the kat does frog shingling. sent7: the kat is a kind of a sushi. sent8: the kat does exercise armed if it exercises crystallography and does not close PMS. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the fact that the kat exercises crystallography but it does not close PMS is right.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the kat exercises armed.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything does exercise crystallography and does not close PMS.

Exercise crystallography and not closing PMS are what it does.

the kat is a kind of a sushi.

there exists something such that if it is not a candlestick but a fathom it does not retrain.

sent1: if something is not squinty and does creep countercheck then it is not a Rustbelt. sent2: the mesoderm is not a candlestick if it does close Spassky and it is handleless. sent3: something does not retrain if it is a candlestick and does fathom.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (x): (¬{DN}x & {C}x) -> ¬{FU}x sent2: ({AN}{ds} & {CN}{ds}) -> ¬{AA}{ds} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there is something such that if it is non-squinty thing that creeps countercheck it is not a Rustbelt.

(Ex): (¬{DN}x & {C}x) -> ¬{FU}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a candlestick but a fathom it does not retrain. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not squinty and does creep countercheck then it is not a Rustbelt. sent2: the mesoderm is not a candlestick if it does close Spassky and it is handleless. sent3: something does not retrain if it is a candlestick and does fathom. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does not retrain if it is a candlestick and does fathom.

something does not retrain if it is a candlestick and does fathom.

if something is not squinty and does creep countercheck then it is not a Rustbelt.

the workshop is not a Chelone.

sent1: the workshop is not a Chelone if that the handcar is both ankylotic and unalike is not correct. sent2: the workshop is not a Chelone if the handcar is not unalike. sent3: the fact that if something is not unalike the fact that it is not ankylotic and it is not a keteleeria is not true is not false. sent4: the nitrobenzene is non-on-street. sent5: the floorboard is a kind of a rotation and/or it is automotive if the nitrobenzene is not on-street. sent6: the worm is a kind of alike thing that is ankylotic if the turnstile is not a Chelone. sent7: if something is a rotation it is not a Chelone. sent8: the handcar does not close mission if the fact that the workshop is not a keteleeria but it close mission does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a keteleeria. sent10: there is something such that it is not a keteleeria. sent11: the trend-setter is a keteleeria if the worm is ankylotic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a keteleeria that the handcar is ankylotic and is unalike is false.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it does not close mission.

(Ex): ¬{CO}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the workshop is not a Chelone. ; $context$ = sent1: the workshop is not a Chelone if that the handcar is both ankylotic and unalike is not correct. sent2: the workshop is not a Chelone if the handcar is not unalike. sent3: the fact that if something is not unalike the fact that it is not ankylotic and it is not a keteleeria is not true is not false. sent4: the nitrobenzene is non-on-street. sent5: the floorboard is a kind of a rotation and/or it is automotive if the nitrobenzene is not on-street. sent6: the worm is a kind of alike thing that is ankylotic if the turnstile is not a Chelone. sent7: if something is a rotation it is not a Chelone. sent8: the handcar does not close mission if the fact that the workshop is not a keteleeria but it close mission does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a keteleeria. sent10: there is something such that it is not a keteleeria. sent11: the trend-setter is a keteleeria if the worm is ankylotic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a keteleeria that the handcar is ankylotic and is unalike is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the handcar is ankylotic and it is unalike is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a keteleeria.

It is not a keteleeria.

if there is something such that it is not a kind of a keteleeria that the handcar is ankylotic and is unalike is false.

the workshop is not a Chelone.

sent1: the workshop is not a Chelone if that the handcar is both ankylotic and unalike is not correct. sent2: the workshop is not a Chelone if the handcar is not unalike. sent3: the fact that if something is not unalike the fact that it is not ankylotic and it is not a keteleeria is not true is not false. sent4: the nitrobenzene is non-on-street. sent5: the floorboard is a kind of a rotation and/or it is automotive if the nitrobenzene is not on-street. sent6: the worm is a kind of alike thing that is ankylotic if the turnstile is not a Chelone. sent7: if something is a rotation it is not a Chelone. sent8: the handcar does not close mission if the fact that the workshop is not a keteleeria but it close mission does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a keteleeria. sent10: there is something such that it is not a keteleeria. sent11: the trend-setter is a keteleeria if the worm is ankylotic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a keteleeria that the handcar is ankylotic and is unalike is false.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it does not close mission.

(Ex): ¬{CO}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the workshop is not a Chelone. ; $context$ = sent1: the workshop is not a Chelone if that the handcar is both ankylotic and unalike is not correct. sent2: the workshop is not a Chelone if the handcar is not unalike. sent3: the fact that if something is not unalike the fact that it is not ankylotic and it is not a keteleeria is not true is not false. sent4: the nitrobenzene is non-on-street. sent5: the floorboard is a kind of a rotation and/or it is automotive if the nitrobenzene is not on-street. sent6: the worm is a kind of alike thing that is ankylotic if the turnstile is not a Chelone. sent7: if something is a rotation it is not a Chelone. sent8: the handcar does not close mission if the fact that the workshop is not a keteleeria but it close mission does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a keteleeria. sent10: there is something such that it is not a keteleeria. sent11: the trend-setter is a keteleeria if the worm is ankylotic. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a keteleeria that the handcar is ankylotic and is unalike is false. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the handcar is ankylotic and it is unalike is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a keteleeria.

There is something that is not a keteleeria.

the workshop is not a Chelone if that the handcar is both ankylotic and unalike is not correct.

the closing touch and the snore occurs.

sent1: if the pollination does not occur the closing touch occurs. sent2: if the pollination does not occur then the fact that both the closing touch and the snoring happens is not wrong. sent3: if the exercising disposable does not occur and the thwack happens then the creeping Dayan does not occur. sent4: the non-feudalness triggers that the snore and the by-line happens. sent5: that both the closing seta and the copularness occurs is triggered by the non-squareness. sent6: the blandishment does not occur but the amendment happens. sent7: if the closing touch does not occur then the catatonicness does not occur and the pollination does not occur. sent8: if the radioimmunoassay does not occur then the closing nephrology occurs and the creeping crankcase occurs. sent9: if not the pollination but the closing touch occurs the dichromaticness does not occur. sent10: that the thwack does not occur is caused by that the closing pacemaker does not occur and the postmortemness occurs. sent11: that not the exercising disposable but the sciaticness happens leads to the non-probabilisticness. sent12: that the firelight occurs is prevented by that the nonmonotonicness does not occur and the exercising unpleasantness occurs. sent13: both the choreographicness and the frogging lateralization happens if the frogging kernel does not occur. sent14: that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur. sent15: both the prevention and the closing pacemaker happens. sent16: that the cycle and the thwack happens is caused by that the payment does not occur. sent17: the nebularness and the bundling occurs. sent18: both the non-saltyness and the hurling happens. sent19: the closing touch happens. sent20: if the facultativeness does not occur and the prevention occurs then the high-low-jack does not occur. sent21: that the suit does not occur causes that the exercising stringybark and the thwack occurs. sent22: the hurling occurs. sent23: if the frogging saprophyte occurs the catachresticness does not occur and the closing touch does not occur.

({C} & {A})

sent1: ¬{B} -> {C} sent2: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent3: (¬{DM} & {CC}) -> ¬{DJ} sent4: ¬{F} -> ({A} & {BB}) sent5: ¬{JA} -> ({EJ} & {IQ}) sent6: (¬{EQ} & {GR}) sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{HL} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{IB} -> ({CA} & {HR}) sent9: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{CO} sent10: (¬{BI} & {GU}) -> ¬{CC} sent11: (¬{DM} & {FF}) -> ¬{AR} sent12: (¬{U} & {FB}) -> ¬{FO} sent13: ¬{DN} -> ({BD} & {IG}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ({FL} & {BI}) sent16: ¬{FR} -> ({I} & {CC}) sent17: ({IR} & {AH}) sent18: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent19: {C} sent20: (¬{N} & {FL}) -> ¬{HI} sent21: ¬{CL} -> ({CH} & {CC}) sent22: {AB} sent23: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the closing touch and the snore happens does not hold.

¬({C} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the closing touch and the snore occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pollination does not occur the closing touch occurs. sent2: if the pollination does not occur then the fact that both the closing touch and the snoring happens is not wrong. sent3: if the exercising disposable does not occur and the thwack happens then the creeping Dayan does not occur. sent4: the non-feudalness triggers that the snore and the by-line happens. sent5: that both the closing seta and the copularness occurs is triggered by the non-squareness. sent6: the blandishment does not occur but the amendment happens. sent7: if the closing touch does not occur then the catatonicness does not occur and the pollination does not occur. sent8: if the radioimmunoassay does not occur then the closing nephrology occurs and the creeping crankcase occurs. sent9: if not the pollination but the closing touch occurs the dichromaticness does not occur. sent10: that the thwack does not occur is caused by that the closing pacemaker does not occur and the postmortemness occurs. sent11: that not the exercising disposable but the sciaticness happens leads to the non-probabilisticness. sent12: that the firelight occurs is prevented by that the nonmonotonicness does not occur and the exercising unpleasantness occurs. sent13: both the choreographicness and the frogging lateralization happens if the frogging kernel does not occur. sent14: that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur. sent15: both the prevention and the closing pacemaker happens. sent16: that the cycle and the thwack happens is caused by that the payment does not occur. sent17: the nebularness and the bundling occurs. sent18: both the non-saltyness and the hurling happens. sent19: the closing touch happens. sent20: if the facultativeness does not occur and the prevention occurs then the high-low-jack does not occur. sent21: that the suit does not occur causes that the exercising stringybark and the thwack occurs. sent22: the hurling occurs. sent23: if the frogging saprophyte occurs the catachresticness does not occur and the closing touch does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent18 -> int1: the pollination does not occur.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur.

pollination does not occur because of the non-saltiness and hurl.

both the non-saltyness and the hurling happens.

the closing touch and the snore occurs.

sent1: if the pollination does not occur the closing touch occurs. sent2: if the pollination does not occur then the fact that both the closing touch and the snoring happens is not wrong. sent3: if the exercising disposable does not occur and the thwack happens then the creeping Dayan does not occur. sent4: the non-feudalness triggers that the snore and the by-line happens. sent5: that both the closing seta and the copularness occurs is triggered by the non-squareness. sent6: the blandishment does not occur but the amendment happens. sent7: if the closing touch does not occur then the catatonicness does not occur and the pollination does not occur. sent8: if the radioimmunoassay does not occur then the closing nephrology occurs and the creeping crankcase occurs. sent9: if not the pollination but the closing touch occurs the dichromaticness does not occur. sent10: that the thwack does not occur is caused by that the closing pacemaker does not occur and the postmortemness occurs. sent11: that not the exercising disposable but the sciaticness happens leads to the non-probabilisticness. sent12: that the firelight occurs is prevented by that the nonmonotonicness does not occur and the exercising unpleasantness occurs. sent13: both the choreographicness and the frogging lateralization happens if the frogging kernel does not occur. sent14: that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur. sent15: both the prevention and the closing pacemaker happens. sent16: that the cycle and the thwack happens is caused by that the payment does not occur. sent17: the nebularness and the bundling occurs. sent18: both the non-saltyness and the hurling happens. sent19: the closing touch happens. sent20: if the facultativeness does not occur and the prevention occurs then the high-low-jack does not occur. sent21: that the suit does not occur causes that the exercising stringybark and the thwack occurs. sent22: the hurling occurs. sent23: if the frogging saprophyte occurs the catachresticness does not occur and the closing touch does not occur.

({C} & {A})

sent1: ¬{B} -> {C} sent2: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent3: (¬{DM} & {CC}) -> ¬{DJ} sent4: ¬{F} -> ({A} & {BB}) sent5: ¬{JA} -> ({EJ} & {IQ}) sent6: (¬{EQ} & {GR}) sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{HL} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{IB} -> ({CA} & {HR}) sent9: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{CO} sent10: (¬{BI} & {GU}) -> ¬{CC} sent11: (¬{DM} & {FF}) -> ¬{AR} sent12: (¬{U} & {FB}) -> ¬{FO} sent13: ¬{DN} -> ({BD} & {IG}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ({FL} & {BI}) sent16: ¬{FR} -> ({I} & {CC}) sent17: ({IR} & {AH}) sent18: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent19: {C} sent20: (¬{N} & {FL}) -> ¬{HI} sent21: ¬{CL} -> ({CH} & {CC}) sent22: {AB} sent23: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the closing touch and the snore happens does not hold.

¬({C} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the closing touch and the snore occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pollination does not occur the closing touch occurs. sent2: if the pollination does not occur then the fact that both the closing touch and the snoring happens is not wrong. sent3: if the exercising disposable does not occur and the thwack happens then the creeping Dayan does not occur. sent4: the non-feudalness triggers that the snore and the by-line happens. sent5: that both the closing seta and the copularness occurs is triggered by the non-squareness. sent6: the blandishment does not occur but the amendment happens. sent7: if the closing touch does not occur then the catatonicness does not occur and the pollination does not occur. sent8: if the radioimmunoassay does not occur then the closing nephrology occurs and the creeping crankcase occurs. sent9: if not the pollination but the closing touch occurs the dichromaticness does not occur. sent10: that the thwack does not occur is caused by that the closing pacemaker does not occur and the postmortemness occurs. sent11: that not the exercising disposable but the sciaticness happens leads to the non-probabilisticness. sent12: that the firelight occurs is prevented by that the nonmonotonicness does not occur and the exercising unpleasantness occurs. sent13: both the choreographicness and the frogging lateralization happens if the frogging kernel does not occur. sent14: that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur. sent15: both the prevention and the closing pacemaker happens. sent16: that the cycle and the thwack happens is caused by that the payment does not occur. sent17: the nebularness and the bundling occurs. sent18: both the non-saltyness and the hurling happens. sent19: the closing touch happens. sent20: if the facultativeness does not occur and the prevention occurs then the high-low-jack does not occur. sent21: that the suit does not occur causes that the exercising stringybark and the thwack occurs. sent22: the hurling occurs. sent23: if the frogging saprophyte occurs the catachresticness does not occur and the closing touch does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent18 -> int1: the pollination does not occur.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the non-saltiness and the hurl occurs results in that the pollination does not occur.

The pollination does not occur because of the non-saltiness and hurl.

if the pollination does not occur then the fact that both the closing touch and the snoring happens is not wrong.

the Young does not close Molise.

sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬(¬{IT}{c} & {A}{c}) sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent6: ¬{E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent7: ¬{C}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent10: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent11: ({GB}{ho} & {FK}{ho}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{c} sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: {B}{dd} sent16: {D}{b} -> {B}{c} sent17: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Young closes Molise.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Young does not close Molise. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA.

The gangplank is a GCA.

the gangplank is a GCA.

the Young does not close Molise.

sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬(¬{IT}{c} & {A}{c}) sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent6: ¬{E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent7: ¬{C}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent10: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent11: ({GB}{ho} & {FK}{ho}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{c} sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: {B}{dd} sent16: {D}{b} -> {B}{c} sent17: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Young closes Molise.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Young does not close Molise. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA.

If the gangplank is a GCA, the wurtzite is a sectional.

if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness.

the Young does not close Molise.

sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬(¬{IT}{c} & {A}{c}) sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent6: ¬{E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent7: ¬{C}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {D}x sent10: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent11: ({GB}{ho} & {FK}{ho}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{c} sent14: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent15: {B}{dd} sent16: {D}{b} -> {B}{c} sent17: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Young closes Molise.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Young does not close Molise. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the wurtzite does not overpay but it is a kind of a formal is wrong it is a kind of a mercifulness. sent2: the fact that if the fact that something is not a mercifulness and is not sectional is wrong then it is a GCA is not false. sent3: the fact that the Young does not rick and is a kind of a GCA is not correct. sent4: that the wurtzite is a kind of a formal that closes Molise is not right. sent5: the Young is a kind of a sectional if it closes Molise. sent6: the wurtzite is a kind of a mercifulness if it is not a kind of a formal. sent7: the gangplank is not a kind of a mercifulness. sent8: that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold. sent9: something does close Molise if it is not a kind of a GCA and it is not a kind of a sectional. sent10: the Young is a formal if the wurtzite does close Molise. sent11: the calk is both not agreeable and not non-infantile. sent12: the gangplank is a GCA. sent13: the Young is a kind of a GCA. sent14: the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA. sent15: the leucothoe is a sectional. sent16: the fact that the Young is sectional hold if the fact that the wurtzite closes Molise is true. sent17: that something is not a mercifulness is not wrong if the fact that it is formal and it is a kind of a mercifulness is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the wurtzite is sectional if the gangplank is a GCA.

If the gangplank is a GCA, the wurtzite is sectional.

that the wurtzite does not overpay and is a formal does not hold.

the jurisprudentialness does not occur.

sent1: the closing shipway does not occur if the fact that both the exercising Voltaren and the living happens is not true. sent2: if the fact that the diapedesis does not occur hold then the fact that the frogging exabit occurs and the frogging stringybark happens is false. sent3: that the shred occurs and the pluralisticness happens is not correct if the bioluminescence does not occur. sent4: the jurisprudentialness does not occur if the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the obscenity does not occur. sent6: the interconnection happens. sent7: the fact that both the evergreen and the culmination occurs is not correct. sent8: the frogging taro does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the closing bondman and the exercising verboseness happens is wrong if the fact that the forelegness does not occur is correct. sent10: that the frogging pharmaceutical does not occur hold. sent11: that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{BK} -> ¬({CK} & {FJ}) sent3: ¬{HE} -> ¬({HS} & {AF}) sent4: {C} -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{A} sent6: {EL} sent7: ¬({BP} & {GN}) sent8: ¬{IJ} sent9: ¬{DR} -> ¬({JE} & {IS}) sent10: ¬{L} sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the jurisprudentialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the closing shipway does not occur if the fact that both the exercising Voltaren and the living happens is not true. sent2: if the fact that the diapedesis does not occur hold then the fact that the frogging exabit occurs and the frogging stringybark happens is false. sent3: that the shred occurs and the pluralisticness happens is not correct if the bioluminescence does not occur. sent4: the jurisprudentialness does not occur if the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the obscenity does not occur. sent6: the interconnection happens. sent7: the fact that both the evergreen and the culmination occurs is not correct. sent8: the frogging taro does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the closing bondman and the exercising verboseness happens is wrong if the fact that the forelegness does not occur is correct. sent10: that the frogging pharmaceutical does not occur hold. sent11: that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur.

If the obscenity doesn't occur, the exercising Voltaren and the living won't hold.

the obscenity does not occur.

the jurisprudentialness does not occur.

sent1: the closing shipway does not occur if the fact that both the exercising Voltaren and the living happens is not true. sent2: if the fact that the diapedesis does not occur hold then the fact that the frogging exabit occurs and the frogging stringybark happens is false. sent3: that the shred occurs and the pluralisticness happens is not correct if the bioluminescence does not occur. sent4: the jurisprudentialness does not occur if the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the obscenity does not occur. sent6: the interconnection happens. sent7: the fact that both the evergreen and the culmination occurs is not correct. sent8: the frogging taro does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the closing bondman and the exercising verboseness happens is wrong if the fact that the forelegness does not occur is correct. sent10: that the frogging pharmaceutical does not occur hold. sent11: that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{BK} -> ¬({CK} & {FJ}) sent3: ¬{HE} -> ¬({HS} & {AF}) sent4: {C} -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{A} sent6: {EL} sent7: ¬({BP} & {GN}) sent8: ¬{IJ} sent9: ¬{DR} -> ¬({JE} & {IS}) sent10: ¬{L} sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the jurisprudentialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the closing shipway does not occur if the fact that both the exercising Voltaren and the living happens is not true. sent2: if the fact that the diapedesis does not occur hold then the fact that the frogging exabit occurs and the frogging stringybark happens is false. sent3: that the shred occurs and the pluralisticness happens is not correct if the bioluminescence does not occur. sent4: the jurisprudentialness does not occur if the efflorescence occurs. sent5: the obscenity does not occur. sent6: the interconnection happens. sent7: the fact that both the evergreen and the culmination occurs is not correct. sent8: the frogging taro does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the closing bondman and the exercising verboseness happens is wrong if the fact that the forelegness does not occur is correct. sent10: that the frogging pharmaceutical does not occur hold. sent11: that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the exercising Voltaren and the living occurs does not hold if the obscenity does not occur.

It doesn't hold if the obscenity doesn't occur.

the closing shipway does not occur if the fact that both the exercising Voltaren and the living happens is not true.

the second is karyokinetic.

sent1: if that something does exercise rebutter and it is sobering does not hold then it is not karyokinetic. sent2: if something exercises rebutter it is karyokinetic. sent3: that the mistral is a kind of inadmissible a Christopher is true. sent4: the second does sober and exercises rebutter. sent5: that the second exercises lowboy is not incorrect. sent6: the arcade is karyokinetic. sent7: the stove is a quadrate if it is karyokinetic. sent8: the second is a specific. sent9: the second sobers. sent10: the second is a Amish.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent3: ({FG}{dn} & {DP}{dn}) sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: {IE}{a} sent6: {C}{ia} sent7: {C}{fu} -> {FC}{fu} sent8: {CE}{a} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {GK}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

that the second is not karyokinetic is right.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the second is karyokinetic. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does exercise rebutter and it is sobering does not hold then it is not karyokinetic. sent2: if something exercises rebutter it is karyokinetic. sent3: that the mistral is a kind of inadmissible a Christopher is true. sent4: the second does sober and exercises rebutter. sent5: that the second exercises lowboy is not incorrect. sent6: the arcade is karyokinetic. sent7: the stove is a quadrate if it is karyokinetic. sent8: the second is a specific. sent9: the second sobers. sent10: the second is a Amish. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the second does exercise rebutter.; sent2 -> int2: if the second does exercise rebutter then it is karyokinetic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the second does sober and exercises rebutter.

the second does sober and exercises rebutter.

if something exercises rebutter it is karyokinetic.

the formalisticness happens and the facility does not occur.

sent1: that that the citrousness happens and the asphalticness occurs hold is wrong. sent2: the anorectalness and the non-titularness happens. sent3: that the revolution does not occur is not false. sent4: if the fact that the trachealness does not occur is not wrong the Venetian does not occur. sent5: that the frogging postgraduate does not occur brings about that the closing pyridine does not occur. sent6: the Dostoevskianness does not occur. sent7: the growl does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the insemination occurs and the Eucharisticness happens is false the creeping BS does not occur. sent9: the exercising Bellingham does not occur. sent10: the fact that the Genesis does not occur is not false if that the chromosomalness happens and the unlikeliness occurs is false. sent11: the titularness but not the sleepwalking happens if the dichotomization does not occur. sent12: the unnaturalness does not occur. sent13: the formalisticness but not the facility occurs if the creeping BS does not occur. sent14: the fact that the hydrodynamicness and the spitball happens is incorrect. sent15: the frogging petabyte but not the foundering happens if the dyslexicness does not occur.

({D} & ¬{C})

sent1: ¬({EN} & {FL}) sent2: ({GG} & ¬{AO}) sent3: ¬{EO} sent4: ¬{IM} -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬{Q} -> ¬{IN} sent6: ¬{EG} sent7: ¬{A} sent8: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{JD} sent10: ¬({HQ} & {E}) -> ¬{FC} sent11: ¬{R} -> ({AO} & ¬{GA}) sent12: ¬{IC} sent13: ¬{B} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent14: ¬({CQ} & {BG}) sent15: ¬{HJ} -> ({AC} & ¬{BC})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the formalisticness happens and the facility does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the citrousness happens and the asphalticness occurs hold is wrong. sent2: the anorectalness and the non-titularness happens. sent3: that the revolution does not occur is not false. sent4: if the fact that the trachealness does not occur is not wrong the Venetian does not occur. sent5: that the frogging postgraduate does not occur brings about that the closing pyridine does not occur. sent6: the Dostoevskianness does not occur. sent7: the growl does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the insemination occurs and the Eucharisticness happens is false the creeping BS does not occur. sent9: the exercising Bellingham does not occur. sent10: the fact that the Genesis does not occur is not false if that the chromosomalness happens and the unlikeliness occurs is false. sent11: the titularness but not the sleepwalking happens if the dichotomization does not occur. sent12: the unnaturalness does not occur. sent13: the formalisticness but not the facility occurs if the creeping BS does not occur. sent14: the fact that the hydrodynamicness and the spitball happens is incorrect. sent15: the frogging petabyte but not the foundering happens if the dyslexicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the frogging postgraduate does not occur brings about that the closing pyridine does not occur.

that the frogging postgraduate does not occur brings about that the closing pyridine does not occur.

if the fact that the trachealness does not occur is not wrong the Venetian does not occur.

something is uncharitable thing that is a Worth.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of an expedient. sent2: something is a kind of a mnemonics and exercises interview. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a Cyprinus and it closes wintergreen. sent4: the fact that the lusterware does not frog carryall and it is not a Worth is wrong if there are non-near things. sent5: there exists something such that it rivals. sent6: that something is meningeal but it is not anagogic is not true if it is a argentinosaur. sent7: the ringtail is not a Worth. sent8: the descender is not pneumococcal but it is puritanical. sent9: the descender is sociable thing that is a kind of a gravity. sent10: there is something such that that it does not frog radiophotograph is true. sent11: something is not near if that it is meningeal and non-anagogic is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it is Sotho. sent13: the descender is a kind of a Worth. sent14: the radiophotograph is charitable. sent15: there is something such that it is not a kind of a BS. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a countermine.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x)

sent1: (Ex): {CU}x sent2: (Ex): ({AD}x & {BA}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AI}x & {DU}x) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}{if} & ¬{B}{if}) sent5: (Ex): {JF}x sent6: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: ¬{B}{id} sent8: (¬{EQ}{a} & {AK}{a}) sent9: (¬{GO}{a} & {GL}{a}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{AS}x sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent12: (Ex): {BQ}x sent13: {B}{a} sent14: {A}{aj} sent15: (Ex): ¬{AP}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{IH}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lusterware is not charitable.

¬{A}{if}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is uncharitable thing that is a Worth. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a kind of an expedient. sent2: something is a kind of a mnemonics and exercises interview. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a Cyprinus and it closes wintergreen. sent4: the fact that the lusterware does not frog carryall and it is not a Worth is wrong if there are non-near things. sent5: there exists something such that it rivals. sent6: that something is meningeal but it is not anagogic is not true if it is a argentinosaur. sent7: the ringtail is not a Worth. sent8: the descender is not pneumococcal but it is puritanical. sent9: the descender is sociable thing that is a kind of a gravity. sent10: there is something such that that it does not frog radiophotograph is true. sent11: something is not near if that it is meningeal and non-anagogic is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it is Sotho. sent13: the descender is a kind of a Worth. sent14: the radiophotograph is charitable. sent15: there is something such that it is not a kind of a BS. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a countermine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is Sotho.

there is something such that it is Sotho.

something is a kind of a mnemonics and exercises interview.

something is not subclavian and is not a kind of a hee-haw.

sent1: the pacemaker is not a fundamental and it is not a kind of a Ophiophagus. sent2: if something is not non-visceral it is not subclavian. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a discussion and it is not kind is correct if it is a kind of an ironwood. sent4: there is something such that it is pyretic. sent5: something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral. sent6: the attachment is glacial if the renter is glacial. sent7: the amperage is a whole. sent8: there is something such that it is not Puranic. sent9: if the attachment is visceral and is not a kind of a whole then the transportation is not visceral. sent10: there exists something such that it does not adapt. sent11: there is something such that it is not a construction and it is arborical. sent12: something is glacial. sent13: there exists something such that it is anserine and it is an advertorial. sent14: something is both not macroeconomics and Irish. sent15: there is something such that it is glacial and it is a kind of a whole. sent16: something does not frog languor and it does not frog desertion if it does exercise unpointedness. sent17: something does not creep confirmation and it is not a REIT. sent18: if something that is glacial is a kind of a whole then the amperage is visceral. sent19: something is not a fission and is armorial.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (¬{JA}{hb} & ¬{GR}{hb}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (x): {EL}x -> (¬{FF}x & ¬{HJ}x) sent4: (Ex): {CH}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent7: {C}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬{HK}x sent9: ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬{O}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{BM}x & {GE}x) sent12: (Ex): {B}x sent13: (Ex): ({BI}x & {EM}x) sent14: (Ex): (¬{DN}x & {HO}x) sent15: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent16: (x): {DG}x -> (¬{DH}x & ¬{CA}x) sent17: (Ex): (¬{CN}x & ¬{JJ}x) sent18: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> {A}{aa} sent19: (Ex): (¬{IN}x & {CB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the amperage is not a fetch and it is not a Tuvalu.

(¬{FA}{aa} & ¬{IT}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is not subclavian and is not a kind of a hee-haw. ; $context$ = sent1: the pacemaker is not a fundamental and it is not a kind of a Ophiophagus. sent2: if something is not non-visceral it is not subclavian. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a discussion and it is not kind is correct if it is a kind of an ironwood. sent4: there is something such that it is pyretic. sent5: something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral. sent6: the attachment is glacial if the renter is glacial. sent7: the amperage is a whole. sent8: there is something such that it is not Puranic. sent9: if the attachment is visceral and is not a kind of a whole then the transportation is not visceral. sent10: there exists something such that it does not adapt. sent11: there is something such that it is not a construction and it is arborical. sent12: something is glacial. sent13: there exists something such that it is anserine and it is an advertorial. sent14: something is both not macroeconomics and Irish. sent15: there is something such that it is glacial and it is a kind of a whole. sent16: something does not frog languor and it does not frog desertion if it does exercise unpointedness. sent17: something does not creep confirmation and it is not a REIT. sent18: if something that is glacial is a kind of a whole then the amperage is visceral. sent19: something is not a fission and is armorial. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the amperage is visceral then it is not subclavian and does not hee-haw.; sent15 & sent18 -> int2: that the amperage is visceral is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the amperage is not subclavian and it is not a kind of a hee-haw.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral.

It is not a hee-haw if it is non-subclavian.

there is something such that it is glacial and it is a kind of a whole.

something is not subclavian and is not a kind of a hee-haw.

sent1: the pacemaker is not a fundamental and it is not a kind of a Ophiophagus. sent2: if something is not non-visceral it is not subclavian. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a discussion and it is not kind is correct if it is a kind of an ironwood. sent4: there is something such that it is pyretic. sent5: something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral. sent6: the attachment is glacial if the renter is glacial. sent7: the amperage is a whole. sent8: there is something such that it is not Puranic. sent9: if the attachment is visceral and is not a kind of a whole then the transportation is not visceral. sent10: there exists something such that it does not adapt. sent11: there is something such that it is not a construction and it is arborical. sent12: something is glacial. sent13: there exists something such that it is anserine and it is an advertorial. sent14: something is both not macroeconomics and Irish. sent15: there is something such that it is glacial and it is a kind of a whole. sent16: something does not frog languor and it does not frog desertion if it does exercise unpointedness. sent17: something does not creep confirmation and it is not a REIT. sent18: if something that is glacial is a kind of a whole then the amperage is visceral. sent19: something is not a fission and is armorial.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (¬{JA}{hb} & ¬{GR}{hb}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (x): {EL}x -> (¬{FF}x & ¬{HJ}x) sent4: (Ex): {CH}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: {B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent7: {C}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬{HK}x sent9: ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ¬{O}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{BM}x & {GE}x) sent12: (Ex): {B}x sent13: (Ex): ({BI}x & {EM}x) sent14: (Ex): (¬{DN}x & {HO}x) sent15: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent16: (x): {DG}x -> (¬{DH}x & ¬{CA}x) sent17: (Ex): (¬{CN}x & ¬{JJ}x) sent18: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> {A}{aa} sent19: (Ex): (¬{IN}x & {CB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the amperage is not a fetch and it is not a Tuvalu.

(¬{FA}{aa} & ¬{IT}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is not subclavian and is not a kind of a hee-haw. ; $context$ = sent1: the pacemaker is not a fundamental and it is not a kind of a Ophiophagus. sent2: if something is not non-visceral it is not subclavian. sent3: the fact that something is not a kind of a discussion and it is not kind is correct if it is a kind of an ironwood. sent4: there is something such that it is pyretic. sent5: something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral. sent6: the attachment is glacial if the renter is glacial. sent7: the amperage is a whole. sent8: there is something such that it is not Puranic. sent9: if the attachment is visceral and is not a kind of a whole then the transportation is not visceral. sent10: there exists something such that it does not adapt. sent11: there is something such that it is not a construction and it is arborical. sent12: something is glacial. sent13: there exists something such that it is anserine and it is an advertorial. sent14: something is both not macroeconomics and Irish. sent15: there is something such that it is glacial and it is a kind of a whole. sent16: something does not frog languor and it does not frog desertion if it does exercise unpointedness. sent17: something does not creep confirmation and it is not a REIT. sent18: if something that is glacial is a kind of a whole then the amperage is visceral. sent19: something is not a fission and is armorial. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the amperage is visceral then it is not subclavian and does not hee-haw.; sent15 & sent18 -> int2: that the amperage is visceral is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the amperage is not subclavian and it is not a kind of a hee-haw.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is non-subclavian thing that is not a hee-haw if it is visceral.

If it is a non-subclavian thing, it is not a hee-haw.

if something that is glacial is a kind of a whole then the amperage is visceral.

the non-permissiveness or the frogging lindane or both happens.

sent1: the pneumonectomy occurs.

(¬{AA} v {B})

sent1: {A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the non-permissiveness or the frogging lindane or both happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the pneumonectomy occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the primitivism is not a rattrap.

sent1: something is a kind of a rattrap if it judges. sent2: the fact that the oscilloscope is a rattrap and it is not non-recombinant is wrong. sent3: there is something such that it judges. sent4: if something is a rattrap then the fact that the yanker is not generous but a cairngorm is not right. sent5: the oscilloscope is ungenerous and it is a recombinant if the yanker is not ametropic. sent6: that the oscilloscope is both a cairngorm and recombinant is not correct if there is something such that that it is a rattrap is not wrong. sent7: something is a recombinant. sent8: if the yanker is not ungenerous then the fact that the primitivism is not a rattrap is correct. sent9: that that something is non-ametropic thing that does not exercise Plato hold is not right if it is philatelic. sent10: the fact that the oscilloscope is both a cairngorm and recombinant is not true. sent11: if something is a kind of a judge and/or it is not recombinant then it is not a recombinant. sent12: the yanker is not ungenerous if the oscilloscope is a cairngorm. sent13: that the oscilloscope is a cairngorm and it is a recombinant is not true if there exists something such that it is a judge. sent14: if the renewal is a statuary then the muishond is apsidal. sent15: the yanker is not ametropic if that the diesel is a kind of ametropic thing that does not exercise Plato does not hold. sent16: something is a judge if that it is a cairngorm hold. sent17: if something frogs alphabetization then it is philatelic. sent18: the diesel does frog alphabetization if the muishond is apsidal. sent19: the fact that the yanker is a cairngorm and it is ungenerous does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the oscilloscope is not a kind of a cairngorm but it is recombinant is not correct then the yanker is not ungenerous. sent21: if the rat-catcher is not non-statuary then the renewal is a non-statuary. sent22: that that something is a cairngorm but not a judge is true is not right if it is recombinant.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the primitivism is a rattrap.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the primitivism is not a rattrap. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a rattrap if it judges. sent2: the fact that the oscilloscope is a rattrap and it is not non-recombinant is wrong. sent3: there is something such that it judges. sent4: if something is a rattrap then the fact that the yanker is not generous but a cairngorm is not right. sent5: the oscilloscope is ungenerous and it is a recombinant if the yanker is not ametropic. sent6: that the oscilloscope is both a cairngorm and recombinant is not correct if there is something such that that it is a rattrap is not wrong. sent7: something is a recombinant. sent8: if the yanker is not ungenerous then the fact that the primitivism is not a rattrap is correct. sent9: that that something is non-ametropic thing that does not exercise Plato hold is not right if it is philatelic. sent10: the fact that the oscilloscope is both a cairngorm and recombinant is not true. sent11: if something is a kind of a judge and/or it is not recombinant then it is not a recombinant. sent12: the yanker is not ungenerous if the oscilloscope is a cairngorm. sent13: that the oscilloscope is a cairngorm and it is a recombinant is not true if there exists something such that it is a judge. sent14: if the renewal is a statuary then the muishond is apsidal. sent15: the yanker is not ametropic if that the diesel is a kind of ametropic thing that does not exercise Plato does not hold. sent16: something is a judge if that it is a cairngorm hold. sent17: if something frogs alphabetization then it is philatelic. sent18: the diesel does frog alphabetization if the muishond is apsidal. sent19: the fact that the yanker is a cairngorm and it is ungenerous does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the oscilloscope is not a kind of a cairngorm but it is recombinant is not correct then the yanker is not ungenerous. sent21: if the rat-catcher is not non-statuary then the renewal is a non-statuary. sent22: that that something is a cairngorm but not a judge is true is not right if it is recombinant. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the oscilloscope is a rattrap and it is not non-recombinant is wrong.

the fact that the oscilloscope is a rattrap and it is not non-recombinant is wrong.

the fact that the oscilloscope is both a cairngorm and recombinant is not true.

the advisableness does not occur.

sent1: that the pacification does not occur is correct. sent2: the fact that the unshockableness and the subjunctiveness happens does not hold if the boskopoidness does not occur. sent3: if the choreography does not occur then the frogging calender does not occur and the rhombicness occurs. sent4: the frogging Docetism occurs but the sip does not occur. sent5: the torture occurs if the dishonestness does not occur. sent6: the axiomaticness does not occur. sent7: the lathering does not occur. sent8: that the frogging calender does not occur yields that both the allotropy and the verdict happens. sent9: the aligning does not occur. sent10: that the boskopoidness does not occur is caused by the verdict. sent11: the torturing occurs. sent12: the suffixation happens but the stoppableness does not occur if the fact that the appellativeness does not occur is right. sent13: that the torture and the inadvisableness happens is triggered by the honestness. sent14: the dishonestness does not occur. sent15: the subjunctive does not occur if the fact that the unshockableness occurs and the subjunctive happens is not right. sent16: the non-subjunctiveness results in that the advisableness occurs but the dishonestness does not occur.

¬{AB}

sent1: ¬{GC} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent3: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent4: ({JB} & ¬{DI}) sent5: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent6: ¬{IT} sent7: ¬{ED} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent9: ¬{GU} sent10: {E} -> ¬{C} sent11: {AA} sent12: ¬{HJ} -> ({AG} & ¬{JG}) sent13: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{A} sent15: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent16: ¬{B} -> ({AB} & ¬{A})

PROVED

PROVED

the advisableness happens.

{AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the advisableness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pacification does not occur is correct. sent2: the fact that the unshockableness and the subjunctiveness happens does not hold if the boskopoidness does not occur. sent3: if the choreography does not occur then the frogging calender does not occur and the rhombicness occurs. sent4: the frogging Docetism occurs but the sip does not occur. sent5: the torture occurs if the dishonestness does not occur. sent6: the axiomaticness does not occur. sent7: the lathering does not occur. sent8: that the frogging calender does not occur yields that both the allotropy and the verdict happens. sent9: the aligning does not occur. sent10: that the boskopoidness does not occur is caused by the verdict. sent11: the torturing occurs. sent12: the suffixation happens but the stoppableness does not occur if the fact that the appellativeness does not occur is right. sent13: that the torture and the inadvisableness happens is triggered by the honestness. sent14: the dishonestness does not occur. sent15: the subjunctive does not occur if the fact that the unshockableness occurs and the subjunctive happens is not right. sent16: the non-subjunctiveness results in that the advisableness occurs but the dishonestness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the torturing and the non-advisableness happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the torture and the inadvisableness happens is triggered by the honestness.

that the torture and the inadvisableness happens is triggered by the honestness.

the dishonestness does not occur.

the fact that the acetone is not soft but it frogs Rask is false.

sent1: if the stonecutter is not soft then the fact that the acetone is soft and does frog Rask is not correct. sent2: something is both not a hand and not unthinkable. sent3: the fact that the saltire does not hand and it is not unthinkable does not hold if the jolly is not Biedermeier. sent4: the fact that the acetone is soft and it frogs Rask is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hand and it is not unthinkable does not hold. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hand and it is not thinkable is wrong. sent7: that the saltire is not a hand and is unthinkable is false if the jolly is not Biedermeier. sent8: if something is unthinkable the stonecutter is not soft. sent9: if there is something such that that the fact that it is not a hand and it is not unthinkable hold is not true the stonecutter is not soft. sent10: that the acetone is not soft but it does frog Rask is not true if the stonecutter is soft.

¬(¬{B}{d} & {D}{d})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the acetone is not soft but it frogs Rask is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stonecutter is not soft then the fact that the acetone is soft and does frog Rask is not correct. sent2: something is both not a hand and not unthinkable. sent3: the fact that the saltire does not hand and it is not unthinkable does not hold if the jolly is not Biedermeier. sent4: the fact that the acetone is soft and it frogs Rask is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hand and it is not unthinkable does not hold. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not a hand and it is not thinkable is wrong. sent7: that the saltire is not a hand and is unthinkable is false if the jolly is not Biedermeier. sent8: if something is unthinkable the stonecutter is not soft. sent9: if there is something such that that the fact that it is not a hand and it is not unthinkable hold is not true the stonecutter is not soft. sent10: that the acetone is not soft but it does frog Rask is not true if the stonecutter is soft. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the stonecutter is not soft then the fact that the acetone is soft and does frog Rask is not correct.

if the stonecutter is not soft then the fact that the acetone is soft and does frog Rask is not correct.

the fact that the saltire does not hand and it is not unthinkable does not hold if the jolly is not Biedermeier.

the exercising cardinality does not occur.

sent1: if the closing Updike and the cart occurs then the exercising cardinality does not occur. sent2: the cart occurs. sent3: the Carmeliteness happens and the frogging parka happens. sent4: the closing Updike happens.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exercising cardinality does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the closing Updike and the cart occurs then the exercising cardinality does not occur. sent2: the cart occurs. sent3: the Carmeliteness happens and the frogging parka happens. sent4: the closing Updike happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 -> int1: both the closing Updike and the cart happens.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the closing Updike happens.

The closing Updike happens.

the cart occurs.

the exercising cardinality does not occur.

sent1: if the closing Updike and the cart occurs then the exercising cardinality does not occur. sent2: the cart occurs. sent3: the Carmeliteness happens and the frogging parka happens. sent4: the closing Updike happens.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exercising cardinality does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the closing Updike and the cart occurs then the exercising cardinality does not occur. sent2: the cart occurs. sent3: the Carmeliteness happens and the frogging parka happens. sent4: the closing Updike happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 -> int1: both the closing Updike and the cart happens.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the closing Updike happens.

The closing of Updike happens.

if the closing Updike and the cart occurs then the exercising cardinality does not occur.

the taro is not a kind of a worse but it does shiver.

sent1: the taro is a UDA if it is a kind of a worse. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a worse and does shiver is wrong if it does not close masseur. sent3: if there is something such that that it exercises petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold then the taro is not a worse. sent4: the nailbrush does not close Apollinaire if there exists something such that that it closes ornithology and does not frog hydra is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that that it shivers and it is not worse does not hold. sent6: if something is a curved it is Handelian. sent7: something closes masseur and is not a intension. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does exercise petabyte and closes ornithology is wrong. sent9: the taro is not a subshrub. sent10: that something is not a Welshman but it is a intension is wrong if it is Handelian. sent11: there exists something such that it does close masseur. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a worse and it does not shiver is not correct. sent13: the taro is not onomastics but it does frog hydra. sent14: something does not close masseur but it shivers if that it is not non-Handelian is true. sent15: if something closes ornithology then the taro is not a kind of a worse. sent16: the taro is an exponential. sent17: either something is not a intension or it is a Welshman or both. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a intension. sent19: there exists something such that that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold. sent20: there exists something such that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology. sent21: the utilizer is a kind of non-Tyrolean thing that is a intension. sent22: there exists something such that it closes masseur and it is a kind of a intension.

(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: {A}{a} -> {AP}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({AB}x & ¬{IB}x) -> ¬{HB}{al} sent5: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent7: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: ¬{FA}{a} sent10: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent11: (Ex): {C}x sent12: (Ex): ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent13: (¬{CO}{a} & {IB}{a}) sent14: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent15: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: {ER}{a} sent17: (Ex): (¬{D}x v {E}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent20: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent21: (¬{DP}{n} & {D}{n}) sent22: (Ex): ({C}x & {D}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the taro is not a kind of a worse but it does shiver is not right.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the taro is not a kind of a worse but it does shiver. ; $context$ = sent1: the taro is a UDA if it is a kind of a worse. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a worse and does shiver is wrong if it does not close masseur. sent3: if there is something such that that it exercises petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold then the taro is not a worse. sent4: the nailbrush does not close Apollinaire if there exists something such that that it closes ornithology and does not frog hydra is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that that it shivers and it is not worse does not hold. sent6: if something is a curved it is Handelian. sent7: something closes masseur and is not a intension. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does exercise petabyte and closes ornithology is wrong. sent9: the taro is not a subshrub. sent10: that something is not a Welshman but it is a intension is wrong if it is Handelian. sent11: there exists something such that it does close masseur. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a worse and it does not shiver is not correct. sent13: the taro is not onomastics but it does frog hydra. sent14: something does not close masseur but it shivers if that it is not non-Handelian is true. sent15: if something closes ornithology then the taro is not a kind of a worse. sent16: the taro is an exponential. sent17: either something is not a intension or it is a Welshman or both. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a intension. sent19: there exists something such that that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold. sent20: there exists something such that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology. sent21: the utilizer is a kind of non-Tyrolean thing that is a intension. sent22: there exists something such that it closes masseur and it is a kind of a intension. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold.

there exists something such that that it does exercise petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold.

if there is something such that that it exercises petabyte and does not close ornithology does not hold then the taro is not a worse.

the stocker is a kind of non-postnatal thing that is Vedic.

sent1: the fact that the vestryman is not Vedic hold. sent2: that the stocker is not a kind of the Michelangelo if the stocker is postnatal is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the stocker is postnatal and it is Vedic is false. sent4: the fact that the stocker is not postnatal is not wrong. sent5: the stocker is both pluralistic and a Michelangelo. sent6: the stocker is not a Michelangelo if the fact that it is non-postnatal and Vedic is incorrect.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the stocker is a kind of non-postnatal thing that is Vedic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the vestryman is not Vedic hold. sent2: that the stocker is not a kind of the Michelangelo if the stocker is postnatal is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the stocker is postnatal and it is Vedic is false. sent4: the fact that the stocker is not postnatal is not wrong. sent5: the stocker is both pluralistic and a Michelangelo. sent6: the stocker is not a Michelangelo if the fact that it is non-postnatal and Vedic is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the stocker is not postnatal and is not non-Vedic does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the stocker is not a Michelangelo.; sent5 -> int2: the stocker is a Michelangelo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the stocker is not a Michelangelo if the fact that it is non-postnatal and Vedic is incorrect.

the stocker is not a Michelangelo if the fact that it is non-postnatal and Vedic is incorrect.

the stocker is both pluralistic and a Michelangelo.

the technetium is a triode.

sent1: if the neurobiologist is not a triode then the technetium is a kind of a milliliter. sent2: if the neurobiologist is not a milliliter but it is a triode then the technetium is not a triode. sent3: the technetium is a milliliter and/or is not a triode. sent4: the technetium is papillary. sent5: the neurobiologist dins or it is a Sukur or both. sent6: the neurobiologist does creep hackee. sent7: the technetium flattens or destructs or both. sent8: the fact that the neurobiologist creeps Smyrnium is correct. sent9: the neurobiologist does close hart. sent10: the fact that the technetium is a Chewa hold. sent11: the technetium flattens. sent12: the branch does not flatten if that it is not a greenshank and it does flatten is wrong. sent13: the hackee is a triode. sent14: the neurobiologist does disband. sent15: the technetium is a milliliter. sent16: if the technetium is a kind of a milliliter and/or does not flatten then the neurobiologist is a triode. sent17: the neurobiologist is a kind of a triode. sent18: the pangolin does flatten. sent19: the technetium is a kind of a triode or it does flatten or both. sent20: if the neurobiologist is a milliliter and/or it does not flatten the technetium is a triode. sent21: the neurobiologist is a milliliter. sent22: if the neurobiologist is not a triode then the technetium flattens.

{C}{b}

sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent2: (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent4: {AH}{b} sent5: ({DG}{a} v {FU}{a}) sent6: {FF}{a} sent7: ({B}{b} v {HB}{b}) sent8: {BS}{a} sent9: {AC}{a} sent10: {P}{b} sent11: {B}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent13: {C}{fj} sent14: {GS}{a} sent15: {A}{b} sent16: ({A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent17: {C}{a} sent18: {B}{ad} sent19: ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) sent20: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent21: {A}{a} sent22: ¬{C}{a} -> {B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the technetium is not a triode.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the technetium is a triode. ; $context$ = sent1: if the neurobiologist is not a triode then the technetium is a kind of a milliliter. sent2: if the neurobiologist is not a milliliter but it is a triode then the technetium is not a triode. sent3: the technetium is a milliliter and/or is not a triode. sent4: the technetium is papillary. sent5: the neurobiologist dins or it is a Sukur or both. sent6: the neurobiologist does creep hackee. sent7: the technetium flattens or destructs or both. sent8: the fact that the neurobiologist creeps Smyrnium is correct. sent9: the neurobiologist does close hart. sent10: the fact that the technetium is a Chewa hold. sent11: the technetium flattens. sent12: the branch does not flatten if that it is not a greenshank and it does flatten is wrong. sent13: the hackee is a triode. sent14: the neurobiologist does disband. sent15: the technetium is a milliliter. sent16: if the technetium is a kind of a milliliter and/or does not flatten then the neurobiologist is a triode. sent17: the neurobiologist is a kind of a triode. sent18: the pangolin does flatten. sent19: the technetium is a kind of a triode or it does flatten or both. sent20: if the neurobiologist is a milliliter and/or it does not flatten the technetium is a triode. sent21: the neurobiologist is a milliliter. sent22: if the neurobiologist is not a triode then the technetium flattens. ; $proof$ =

sent21 -> int1: the neurobiologist is a kind of a milliliter and/or does not flatten.; sent20 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the neurobiologist is a milliliter.

the neurobiologist is a milliliter.

if the neurobiologist is a milliliter and/or it does not flatten the technetium is a triode.

the supersonicness occurs and/or the write-off happens.

sent1: the jack-o'-lantern does not occur. sent2: the non-unreproducibleness is caused by that the parcellation occurs and/or that the agnostic occurs. sent3: the write-off does not occur. sent4: the unreproducibleness and/or the temperamentalness prevents that the agnosticness occurs. sent5: the unreproducibleness does not occur if the agnostic happens. sent6: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the fact that the supersonicness occurs or the write-off happens or both is not correct. sent7: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the write-off does not occur. sent8: the parcellation occurs.

({D} v {E})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

either the supersonicness happens or the write-off happens or both.

({D} v {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the supersonicness occurs and/or the write-off happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the jack-o'-lantern does not occur. sent2: the non-unreproducibleness is caused by that the parcellation occurs and/or that the agnostic occurs. sent3: the write-off does not occur. sent4: the unreproducibleness and/or the temperamentalness prevents that the agnosticness occurs. sent5: the unreproducibleness does not occur if the agnostic happens. sent6: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the fact that the supersonicness occurs or the write-off happens or both is not correct. sent7: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the write-off does not occur. sent8: the parcellation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: either the parcellation happens or the agnosticness happens or both.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the unreproducibleness does not occur.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the parcellation occurs.

The parcellation happens.

the non-unreproducibleness is caused by that the parcellation occurs and/or that the agnostic occurs.

the supersonicness occurs and/or the write-off happens.

sent1: the jack-o'-lantern does not occur. sent2: the non-unreproducibleness is caused by that the parcellation occurs and/or that the agnostic occurs. sent3: the write-off does not occur. sent4: the unreproducibleness and/or the temperamentalness prevents that the agnosticness occurs. sent5: the unreproducibleness does not occur if the agnostic happens. sent6: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the fact that the supersonicness occurs or the write-off happens or both is not correct. sent7: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the write-off does not occur. sent8: the parcellation occurs.

({D} v {E})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

either the supersonicness happens or the write-off happens or both.

({D} v {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the supersonicness occurs and/or the write-off happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the jack-o'-lantern does not occur. sent2: the non-unreproducibleness is caused by that the parcellation occurs and/or that the agnostic occurs. sent3: the write-off does not occur. sent4: the unreproducibleness and/or the temperamentalness prevents that the agnosticness occurs. sent5: the unreproducibleness does not occur if the agnostic happens. sent6: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the fact that the supersonicness occurs or the write-off happens or both is not correct. sent7: if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the write-off does not occur. sent8: the parcellation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: either the parcellation happens or the agnosticness happens or both.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the unreproducibleness does not occur.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the parcellation occurs.

The parcellation occurs.

if the unreproducibleness does not occur then the fact that the supersonicness occurs or the write-off happens or both is not correct.

the frogging coolie does not occur.

sent1: the indenting happens. sent2: if the primeness does not occur then the frogging coolie occurs and the indent occurs. sent3: the Hispaniolanness does not occur if that the evanescing happens and the castle does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the closing columbite-tantalite occurs and the Michigan does not occur is false. sent5: if the archaisticness happens that the respecting and the piggybacking happens is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness occurs is not right then the frogging coolie does not occur. sent7: the fact that the solace happens and the ferromagneticness occurs is not right. sent8: if the closing torticollis happens then that both the masochisticness and the disaster happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the unsteadiness occurs but the Michigan does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the gazing happens the athleticsness does not occur. sent12: that the picking occurs yields that the priming does not occur and the frogging furring does not occur. sent13: the fact that the closing Ambystomatidae happens and the habitude occurs is not true if the discontinuance happens.

¬{B}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent3: ¬({DC} & ¬{CO}) -> ¬{GI} sent4: ¬({FJ} & ¬{CR}) sent5: {FC} -> ¬({N} & {HN}) sent6: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬({GJ} & {GO}) sent8: {CQ} -> ¬({R} & {EG}) sent9: ¬({HO} & ¬{CR}) sent10: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: {GQ} -> ¬{FM} sent12: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent13: {GD} -> ¬({CD} & {AL})

PROVED

PROVED

the frogging coolie occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frogging coolie does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the indenting happens. sent2: if the primeness does not occur then the frogging coolie occurs and the indent occurs. sent3: the Hispaniolanness does not occur if that the evanescing happens and the castle does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the closing columbite-tantalite occurs and the Michigan does not occur is false. sent5: if the archaisticness happens that the respecting and the piggybacking happens is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness occurs is not right then the frogging coolie does not occur. sent7: the fact that the solace happens and the ferromagneticness occurs is not right. sent8: if the closing torticollis happens then that both the masochisticness and the disaster happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the unsteadiness occurs but the Michigan does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the gazing happens the athleticsness does not occur. sent12: that the picking occurs yields that the priming does not occur and the frogging furring does not occur. sent13: the fact that the closing Ambystomatidae happens and the habitude occurs is not true if the discontinuance happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that both the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness happens is false.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong.

The unselfishness does not occur if the indent occurs.

the indenting happens.

the frogging coolie does not occur.

sent1: the indenting happens. sent2: if the primeness does not occur then the frogging coolie occurs and the indent occurs. sent3: the Hispaniolanness does not occur if that the evanescing happens and the castle does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the closing columbite-tantalite occurs and the Michigan does not occur is false. sent5: if the archaisticness happens that the respecting and the piggybacking happens is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness occurs is not right then the frogging coolie does not occur. sent7: the fact that the solace happens and the ferromagneticness occurs is not right. sent8: if the closing torticollis happens then that both the masochisticness and the disaster happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the unsteadiness occurs but the Michigan does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the gazing happens the athleticsness does not occur. sent12: that the picking occurs yields that the priming does not occur and the frogging furring does not occur. sent13: the fact that the closing Ambystomatidae happens and the habitude occurs is not true if the discontinuance happens.

¬{B}

sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent3: ¬({DC} & ¬{CO}) -> ¬{GI} sent4: ¬({FJ} & ¬{CR}) sent5: {FC} -> ¬({N} & {HN}) sent6: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬({GJ} & {GO}) sent8: {CQ} -> ¬({R} & {EG}) sent9: ¬({HO} & ¬{CR}) sent10: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: {GQ} -> ¬{FM} sent12: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent13: {GD} -> ¬({CD} & {AL})

PROVED

PROVED

the frogging coolie occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frogging coolie does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the indenting happens. sent2: if the primeness does not occur then the frogging coolie occurs and the indent occurs. sent3: the Hispaniolanness does not occur if that the evanescing happens and the castle does not occur does not hold. sent4: the fact that the closing columbite-tantalite occurs and the Michigan does not occur is false. sent5: if the archaisticness happens that the respecting and the piggybacking happens is incorrect. sent6: if the fact that the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness occurs is not right then the frogging coolie does not occur. sent7: the fact that the solace happens and the ferromagneticness occurs is not right. sent8: if the closing torticollis happens then that both the masochisticness and the disaster happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the unsteadiness occurs but the Michigan does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong. sent11: if the gazing happens the athleticsness does not occur. sent12: that the picking occurs yields that the priming does not occur and the frogging furring does not occur. sent13: the fact that the closing Ambystomatidae happens and the habitude occurs is not true if the discontinuance happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that both the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness happens is false.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the indent occurs that the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness does not occur is wrong.

If the caffeinicness occurs but the unselfishness doesn't, it's wrong.

if the fact that the caffeinicness and the non-unselfishness occurs is not right then the frogging coolie does not occur.

the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens does not hold if the rendezvousing happens. sent2: both the discipleship and the natriureticness happens. sent3: that the rendezvous occurs or that the humming occurs or both yields the non-psychotherapeuticness. sent4: the hum occurs. sent5: if the high-interestness does not occur the frogging guerrilla happens and the IV happens. sent6: if the exercising obfuscation happens then the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur. sent7: that the natriureticness does not occur brings about that the psychotherapeuticness but not the humming happens. sent8: if the exercising demyelination occurs the exercising obfuscation happens. sent9: the non-sententialness and the self-renewal happens. sent10: the natriureticness happens. sent11: that the shortness does not occur results in that the communion and the exercising demyelination happens. sent12: if the rendezvous occurs then the psychotherapeuticness does not occur. sent13: if the frogging guerrilla occurs then the coupling does not occur. sent14: the shortness does not occur if the coupling does not occur. sent15: that the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur prevents the natriureticness. sent16: if the natriureticness does not occur then the rendezvousing happens and the hum happens.

(¬{C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that both the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not false is false.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens does not hold if the rendezvousing happens. sent2: both the discipleship and the natriureticness happens. sent3: that the rendezvous occurs or that the humming occurs or both yields the non-psychotherapeuticness. sent4: the hum occurs. sent5: if the high-interestness does not occur the frogging guerrilla happens and the IV happens. sent6: if the exercising obfuscation happens then the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur. sent7: that the natriureticness does not occur brings about that the psychotherapeuticness but not the humming happens. sent8: if the exercising demyelination occurs the exercising obfuscation happens. sent9: the non-sententialness and the self-renewal happens. sent10: the natriureticness happens. sent11: that the shortness does not occur results in that the communion and the exercising demyelination happens. sent12: if the rendezvous occurs then the psychotherapeuticness does not occur. sent13: if the frogging guerrilla occurs then the coupling does not occur. sent14: the shortness does not occur if the coupling does not occur. sent15: that the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur prevents the natriureticness. sent16: if the natriureticness does not occur then the rendezvousing happens and the hum happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the rendezvous occurs and/or the humming occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness does not occur.; sent2 -> int3: the discipleship occurs.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hum occurs.

The hum doesn't stop until the 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

that the rendezvous occurs or that the humming occurs or both yields the non-psychotherapeuticness.

the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens does not hold if the rendezvousing happens. sent2: both the discipleship and the natriureticness happens. sent3: that the rendezvous occurs or that the humming occurs or both yields the non-psychotherapeuticness. sent4: the hum occurs. sent5: if the high-interestness does not occur the frogging guerrilla happens and the IV happens. sent6: if the exercising obfuscation happens then the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur. sent7: that the natriureticness does not occur brings about that the psychotherapeuticness but not the humming happens. sent8: if the exercising demyelination occurs the exercising obfuscation happens. sent9: the non-sententialness and the self-renewal happens. sent10: the natriureticness happens. sent11: that the shortness does not occur results in that the communion and the exercising demyelination happens. sent12: if the rendezvous occurs then the psychotherapeuticness does not occur. sent13: if the frogging guerrilla occurs then the coupling does not occur. sent14: the shortness does not occur if the coupling does not occur. sent15: that the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur prevents the natriureticness. sent16: if the natriureticness does not occur then the rendezvousing happens and the hum happens.

(¬{C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the fact that both the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not false is false.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the non-psychotherapeuticness and the discipleship happens does not hold if the rendezvousing happens. sent2: both the discipleship and the natriureticness happens. sent3: that the rendezvous occurs or that the humming occurs or both yields the non-psychotherapeuticness. sent4: the hum occurs. sent5: if the high-interestness does not occur the frogging guerrilla happens and the IV happens. sent6: if the exercising obfuscation happens then the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur. sent7: that the natriureticness does not occur brings about that the psychotherapeuticness but not the humming happens. sent8: if the exercising demyelination occurs the exercising obfuscation happens. sent9: the non-sententialness and the self-renewal happens. sent10: the natriureticness happens. sent11: that the shortness does not occur results in that the communion and the exercising demyelination happens. sent12: if the rendezvous occurs then the psychotherapeuticness does not occur. sent13: if the frogging guerrilla occurs then the coupling does not occur. sent14: the shortness does not occur if the coupling does not occur. sent15: that the closing butternut does not occur and the little does not occur prevents the natriureticness. sent16: if the natriureticness does not occur then the rendezvousing happens and the hum happens. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the rendezvous occurs and/or the humming occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness does not occur.; sent2 -> int3: the discipleship occurs.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hum occurs.

The hum happens.

both the discipleship and the natriureticness happens.

the lactation does not occur.

sent1: if the polyhedralness happens then the lactation does not occur. sent2: that the fact that the frogging popularity happens does not hold hold. sent3: the non-atomisticness is prevented by that the frogging force happens. sent4: if the fact that that the optimization does not occur and the adjectivalness occurs is not true is right then that the lactation occurs is not incorrect. sent5: if the adjectivalness happens then the tunelessness occurs. sent6: the lactation does not occur if either the tunelessness occurs or the polyhedralness occurs or both. sent7: the joggle does not occur. sent8: the exculpation does not occur. sent9: if the optimization occurs the tunelessness occurs.

¬{E}

sent1: {D} -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{FR} sent3: {EE} -> {AM} sent4: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {E} sent5: {A} -> {C} sent6: ({C} v {D}) -> ¬{E} sent7: ¬{GM} sent8: ¬{T} sent9: {B} -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lactation occurs.

{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lactation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the polyhedralness happens then the lactation does not occur. sent2: that the fact that the frogging popularity happens does not hold hold. sent3: the non-atomisticness is prevented by that the frogging force happens. sent4: if the fact that that the optimization does not occur and the adjectivalness occurs is not true is right then that the lactation occurs is not incorrect. sent5: if the adjectivalness happens then the tunelessness occurs. sent6: the lactation does not occur if either the tunelessness occurs or the polyhedralness occurs or both. sent7: the joggle does not occur. sent8: the exculpation does not occur. sent9: if the optimization occurs the tunelessness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the optimization occurs the tunelessness occurs.

if the optimization occurs the tunelessness occurs.

the lactation does not occur if either the tunelessness occurs or the polyhedralness occurs or both.

that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right.

sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} sent2: ¬({FL} & ¬{O}) sent3: ¬{BT} -> ¬({CJ} & ¬{FC}) sent4: ({FB} & ¬{FJ}) sent5: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent8: ({DJ} & {AI}) sent9: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent10: {DD} sent11: ({F} & ¬{H}) -> {E} sent12: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{F} sent14: ¬({I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({EH} & ¬{FO}) sent16: ({A} & {B}) sent17: ¬{I} -> ({F} & ¬{H}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lacing but not the exercising chime happens does not hold.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the shrinkage happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lacing happens.; sent19 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the exercising chime but not the frogging deathtrap happens does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the exercising chime does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shrinkage and the receivership happens.

The receiver happens.

the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens.

that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right.

sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} sent2: ¬({FL} & ¬{O}) sent3: ¬{BT} -> ¬({CJ} & ¬{FC}) sent4: ({FB} & ¬{FJ}) sent5: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent8: ({DJ} & {AI}) sent9: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent10: {DD} sent11: ({F} & ¬{H}) -> {E} sent12: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{F} sent14: ¬({I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({EH} & ¬{FO}) sent16: ({A} & {B}) sent17: ¬{I} -> ({F} & ¬{H}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lacing but not the exercising chime happens does not hold.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the shrinkage happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lacing happens.; sent19 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the exercising chime but not the frogging deathtrap happens does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the exercising chime does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shrinkage and the receivership happens.

The receivership happens as a result of the shrinkage.

that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur.

that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right.

sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} sent2: ¬({FL} & ¬{O}) sent3: ¬{BT} -> ¬({CJ} & ¬{FC}) sent4: ({FB} & ¬{FJ}) sent5: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent8: ({DJ} & {AI}) sent9: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent10: {DD} sent11: ({F} & ¬{H}) -> {E} sent12: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{F} sent14: ¬({I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({EH} & ¬{FO}) sent16: ({A} & {B}) sent17: ¬{I} -> ({F} & ¬{H}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lacing but not the exercising chime happens does not hold.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the shrinkage happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lacing happens.; sent19 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the exercising chime but not the frogging deathtrap happens does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the exercising chime does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shrinkage and the receivership happens.

The receivership happens as a result of the shrink.

the fact that the velar occurs does not hold.

that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right.

sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {B} sent2: ¬({FL} & ¬{O}) sent3: ¬{BT} -> ¬({CJ} & ¬{FC}) sent4: ({FB} & ¬{FJ}) sent5: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent8: ({DJ} & {AI}) sent9: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent10: {DD} sent11: ({F} & ¬{H}) -> {E} sent12: ¬({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{F} sent14: ¬({I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({EH} & ¬{FO}) sent16: ({A} & {B}) sent17: ¬{I} -> ({F} & ¬{H}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the lacing but not the exercising chime happens does not hold.

¬({C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lacing happens and the exercising chime does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: that the hunter happens but the exercising Liederkranz does not occur does not hold. sent3: if the burning does not occur that the gliding occurs and the bonfire does not occur is not true. sent4: both the shave and the non-improbableness happens. sent5: if that the independentness occurs and the exercising exteroceptor happens is incorrect the independentness does not occur. sent6: the lacing is caused by that the shrinkage happens. sent7: if the shrinkage does not occur then the fact that the lacing occurs but the exercising chime does not occur is not right. sent8: both the evaporating and the frogging megaspore occurs. sent9: the frogging deathtrap does not occur and the velar does not occur if the click-clack occurs. sent10: the unfastening happens. sent11: that the frogging deathtrap does not occur is prevented by that the velar but not the creeping spoon happens. sent12: if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold. sent13: the fact that the velar occurs does not hold. sent14: the click-clack does not occur if that the independentness and the click-clack occurs is false. sent15: the fact that the diffraction occurs but the supersedure does not occur does not hold if the fact that the shrinkage does not occur is not wrong. sent16: the shrinkage and the receivership happens. sent17: the velar but not the creeping spoon happens if the independentness does not occur. sent18: if the receivership does not occur then that the lacing occurs and the shrinkage occurs does not hold. sent19: that the exercising chime occurs and the frogging deathtrap does not occur is false if the velarness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the shrinkage happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lacing happens.; sent19 & sent13 -> int3: the fact that the exercising chime but not the frogging deathtrap happens does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the exercising chime does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shrinkage and the receivership happens.

The receivership occurs as a result of the shrinkage.

if that the exercising chime happens and the frogging deathtrap does not occur does not hold the fact that the exercising chime does not occur hold.

the atmosphericness occurs.

sent1: if the ablation does not occur not the atmosphericness but the activating happens. sent2: that the fielding occurs is caused by that the RAIU occurs. sent3: if that either the RAIU does not occur or the fielding happens or both is false then the traveling occurs. sent4: the fielding does not occur.

{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the traveling occurs.

{DK}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the atmosphericness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ablation does not occur not the atmosphericness but the activating happens. sent2: that the fielding occurs is caused by that the RAIU occurs. sent3: if that either the RAIU does not occur or the fielding happens or both is false then the traveling occurs. sent4: the fielding does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fielding occurs is caused by that the RAIU occurs.

that the fielding occurs is caused by that the RAIU occurs.

the fielding does not occur.

the mossback is not a differential.

sent1: the animator is not differential. sent2: if the fact that that the animator does not soften pinched but it is a kind of a paramagnet hold is incorrect the mossback is not a kind of a differential. sent3: if something that is not a stir is not a mark then the falcon-gentle is a drone. sent4: the fact that the mossback is not a differential but it is a paramagnet is not true if it does not soften transience. sent5: something does not glimpse EE if that it is addictive thing that is not a brandyball is not correct. sent6: if the irradiation is not a raven that it does not soften pinched and is a kind of a stir is not true. sent7: if the shopfront is apicultural that the empress is not Mendelian and it is not hospitable is wrong. sent8: that the mossback glimpses EE and softens transience is not right. sent9: something is not a stir and it is not a Templar if it is scorbutic. sent10: if the mossback is not differential then that it does soften pinched and is a paramagnet does not hold. sent11: The transience does not soften animator. sent12: there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent13: if the catechist is not undulatory then the sawdust is a kind of a raven that is not a clomipramine. sent14: if the sawdust is a raven but it is not a kind of a clomipramine then the thymine is scorbutic. sent15: the fact that the animator is not nonaddictive and it is not a kind of a brandyball does not hold if the falcon-gentle does drone. sent16: the fact that the catechist is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold if there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent17: the mossback is not a differential if the animator softens pinched. sent18: if the fact that something is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold then it is not undulatory. sent19: the animator does not soften transience. sent20: if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold. sent21: the shopfront is not non-apicultural. sent22: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Mendelian and it is not hospitable does not hold the thymine is not a kind of a mark.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{c} sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: ¬{M}{co} -> ¬(¬{AA}{co} & {G}{co}) sent7: {R}{h} -> ¬(¬{L}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent8: ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent9: (x): {J}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{I}x) sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent11: ¬{AC}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{S}x sent13: ¬{O}{g} -> ({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent14: ({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) -> {J}{d} sent15: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{S}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{g} & {P}{g}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{Q}x & {P}x) -> ¬{O}x sent19: ¬{A}{a} sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: {R}{h} sent22: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{H}{d}

PROVED

PROVED

the mossback is a kind of a differential.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mossback is not a differential. ; $context$ = sent1: the animator is not differential. sent2: if the fact that that the animator does not soften pinched but it is a kind of a paramagnet hold is incorrect the mossback is not a kind of a differential. sent3: if something that is not a stir is not a mark then the falcon-gentle is a drone. sent4: the fact that the mossback is not a differential but it is a paramagnet is not true if it does not soften transience. sent5: something does not glimpse EE if that it is addictive thing that is not a brandyball is not correct. sent6: if the irradiation is not a raven that it does not soften pinched and is a kind of a stir is not true. sent7: if the shopfront is apicultural that the empress is not Mendelian and it is not hospitable is wrong. sent8: that the mossback glimpses EE and softens transience is not right. sent9: something is not a stir and it is not a Templar if it is scorbutic. sent10: if the mossback is not differential then that it does soften pinched and is a paramagnet does not hold. sent11: The transience does not soften animator. sent12: there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent13: if the catechist is not undulatory then the sawdust is a kind of a raven that is not a clomipramine. sent14: if the sawdust is a raven but it is not a kind of a clomipramine then the thymine is scorbutic. sent15: the fact that the animator is not nonaddictive and it is not a kind of a brandyball does not hold if the falcon-gentle does drone. sent16: the fact that the catechist is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold if there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent17: the mossback is not a differential if the animator softens pinched. sent18: if the fact that something is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold then it is not undulatory. sent19: the animator does not soften transience. sent20: if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold. sent21: the shopfront is not non-apicultural. sent22: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Mendelian and it is not hospitable does not hold the thymine is not a kind of a mark. ; $proof$ =

sent20 & sent19 -> int1: that the animator does not soften pinched and is a paramagnet is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold.

If the animator doesn't make transience softer, it won't hold, and it won't make MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

the animator does not soften transience.

the mossback is not a differential.

sent1: the animator is not differential. sent2: if the fact that that the animator does not soften pinched but it is a kind of a paramagnet hold is incorrect the mossback is not a kind of a differential. sent3: if something that is not a stir is not a mark then the falcon-gentle is a drone. sent4: the fact that the mossback is not a differential but it is a paramagnet is not true if it does not soften transience. sent5: something does not glimpse EE if that it is addictive thing that is not a brandyball is not correct. sent6: if the irradiation is not a raven that it does not soften pinched and is a kind of a stir is not true. sent7: if the shopfront is apicultural that the empress is not Mendelian and it is not hospitable is wrong. sent8: that the mossback glimpses EE and softens transience is not right. sent9: something is not a stir and it is not a Templar if it is scorbutic. sent10: if the mossback is not differential then that it does soften pinched and is a paramagnet does not hold. sent11: The transience does not soften animator. sent12: there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent13: if the catechist is not undulatory then the sawdust is a kind of a raven that is not a clomipramine. sent14: if the sawdust is a raven but it is not a kind of a clomipramine then the thymine is scorbutic. sent15: the fact that the animator is not nonaddictive and it is not a kind of a brandyball does not hold if the falcon-gentle does drone. sent16: the fact that the catechist is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold if there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent17: the mossback is not a differential if the animator softens pinched. sent18: if the fact that something is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold then it is not undulatory. sent19: the animator does not soften transience. sent20: if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold. sent21: the shopfront is not non-apicultural. sent22: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Mendelian and it is not hospitable does not hold the thymine is not a kind of a mark.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{c} sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: ¬{M}{co} -> ¬(¬{AA}{co} & {G}{co}) sent7: {R}{h} -> ¬(¬{L}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent8: ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent9: (x): {J}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{I}x) sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent11: ¬{AC}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{S}x sent13: ¬{O}{g} -> ({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent14: ({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) -> {J}{d} sent15: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{S}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{g} & {P}{g}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{Q}x & {P}x) -> ¬{O}x sent19: ¬{A}{a} sent20: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: {R}{h} sent22: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{H}{d}

PROVED

PROVED

the mossback is a kind of a differential.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mossback is not a differential. ; $context$ = sent1: the animator is not differential. sent2: if the fact that that the animator does not soften pinched but it is a kind of a paramagnet hold is incorrect the mossback is not a kind of a differential. sent3: if something that is not a stir is not a mark then the falcon-gentle is a drone. sent4: the fact that the mossback is not a differential but it is a paramagnet is not true if it does not soften transience. sent5: something does not glimpse EE if that it is addictive thing that is not a brandyball is not correct. sent6: if the irradiation is not a raven that it does not soften pinched and is a kind of a stir is not true. sent7: if the shopfront is apicultural that the empress is not Mendelian and it is not hospitable is wrong. sent8: that the mossback glimpses EE and softens transience is not right. sent9: something is not a stir and it is not a Templar if it is scorbutic. sent10: if the mossback is not differential then that it does soften pinched and is a paramagnet does not hold. sent11: The transience does not soften animator. sent12: there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent13: if the catechist is not undulatory then the sawdust is a kind of a raven that is not a clomipramine. sent14: if the sawdust is a raven but it is not a kind of a clomipramine then the thymine is scorbutic. sent15: the fact that the animator is not nonaddictive and it is not a kind of a brandyball does not hold if the falcon-gentle does drone. sent16: the fact that the catechist is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold if there exists something such that it does not untwine. sent17: the mossback is not a differential if the animator softens pinched. sent18: if the fact that something is not fermentable but flowerless does not hold then it is not undulatory. sent19: the animator does not soften transience. sent20: if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold. sent21: the shopfront is not non-apicultural. sent22: if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Mendelian and it is not hospitable does not hold the thymine is not a kind of a mark. ; $proof$ =

sent20 & sent19 -> int1: that the animator does not soften pinched and is a paramagnet is not right.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the animator does not soften transience the fact that it does not soften pinched and it is a paramagnet does not hold.

If the animator doesn't make transience softer, it won't hold, and if it does, it won't make MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

if the fact that that the animator does not soften pinched but it is a kind of a paramagnet hold is incorrect the mossback is not a kind of a differential.

the lymphocyte is a capillary.

sent1: something is not capillary and it is not angiocarpic if it is a popgun. sent2: the fact that the lymphocyte is a popgun hold if the synovia is a popgun. sent3: something is a mobcap. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of a performance. sent5: the lymphocyte is a capillary if a mobcap does not soften synovia. sent6: the miler is a mobcap that does not soften synovia. sent7: the miler is a capillary if there exists something such that the fact that it softens synovia and it is not a mobcap is true.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the lymphocyte is not a capillary.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lymphocyte is a capillary. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not capillary and it is not angiocarpic if it is a popgun. sent2: the fact that the lymphocyte is a popgun hold if the synovia is a popgun. sent3: something is a mobcap. sent4: there exists something such that it is a kind of a performance. sent5: the lymphocyte is a capillary if a mobcap does not soften synovia. sent6: the miler is a mobcap that does not soften synovia. sent7: the miler is a capillary if there exists something such that the fact that it softens synovia and it is not a mobcap is true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: something is a mobcap but it does not soften synovia.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the miler is a mobcap that does not soften synovia.

the miler is a mobcap that does not soften synovia.

the lymphocyte is a capillary if a mobcap does not soften synovia.

the humate is a Selene.

sent1: if something does glimpse interim either the submitter is casuistic or it is a penology or both. sent2: that either something does not avert or it is not antimonic or both is not correct if it is not noncurrent. sent3: there is nothing that is jurisprudential and noncurrent. sent4: the helleborine is a penology if something is not a digitigrade. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of jurisprudential thing that is noncurrent is wrong it is not noncurrent. sent6: that the helleborine does reconvene nerve is not wrong. sent7: the helleborine is a kind of a penology. sent8: there are non-digitigrade things. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a Selene then the humate is casuistic. sent10: the humate is a kind of a andrena and it is a caracolito. sent11: if the submitter is a kind of a penology the anterior is a kind of a crewman. sent12: the anisogamy does glimpse interim and it is a halfbeak if there is something such that it is autographic. sent13: if the helleborine is a kind of a Selene then the humate is casuistic. sent14: if the submitter is casuistic then the anterior is a kind of a crewman. sent15: the Xhosa is a kind of a crewman if that it is not a crewman and not a halfbeak does not hold. sent16: the humate is a crewman. sent17: if that the helleborine is digitigrade thing that is not a Selene is incorrect the humate is not a Selene. sent18: there is something such that it is digitigrade. sent19: if the helleborine is casuistic then the humate is a Selene. sent20: if that the chemoreceptor does not avert and/or it is not antimonic is incorrect then the baas is autographic. sent21: if the hamster foliates it is a penology. sent22: the helleborine is a crewman and is a penology if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a digitigrade.

{E}{b}

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{d} v {C}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬(¬{J}x v ¬{I}x) sent3: (x): ¬({M}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({M}x & {K}x) -> ¬{K}x sent6: {BT}{a} sent7: {C}{a} sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent9: (x): ¬{E}x -> {D}{b} sent10: ({HT}{b} & {AL}{b}) sent11: {C}{d} -> {B}{c} sent12: (x): {H}x -> ({F}{e} & {G}{e}) sent13: {E}{a} -> {D}{b} sent14: {D}{d} -> {B}{c} sent15: ¬(¬{B}{ea} & ¬{G}{ea}) -> {B}{ea} sent16: {B}{b} sent17: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent18: (Ex): {A}x sent19: {D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent20: ¬(¬{J}{g} v ¬{I}{g}) -> {H}{f} sent21: {AC}{cp} -> {C}{cp} sent22: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the humate is not a Selene.

¬{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the humate is a Selene. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does glimpse interim either the submitter is casuistic or it is a penology or both. sent2: that either something does not avert or it is not antimonic or both is not correct if it is not noncurrent. sent3: there is nothing that is jurisprudential and noncurrent. sent4: the helleborine is a penology if something is not a digitigrade. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of jurisprudential thing that is noncurrent is wrong it is not noncurrent. sent6: that the helleborine does reconvene nerve is not wrong. sent7: the helleborine is a kind of a penology. sent8: there are non-digitigrade things. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a Selene then the humate is casuistic. sent10: the humate is a kind of a andrena and it is a caracolito. sent11: if the submitter is a kind of a penology the anterior is a kind of a crewman. sent12: the anisogamy does glimpse interim and it is a halfbeak if there is something such that it is autographic. sent13: if the helleborine is a kind of a Selene then the humate is casuistic. sent14: if the submitter is casuistic then the anterior is a kind of a crewman. sent15: the Xhosa is a kind of a crewman if that it is not a crewman and not a halfbeak does not hold. sent16: the humate is a crewman. sent17: if that the helleborine is digitigrade thing that is not a Selene is incorrect the humate is not a Selene. sent18: there is something such that it is digitigrade. sent19: if the helleborine is casuistic then the humate is a Selene. sent20: if that the chemoreceptor does not avert and/or it is not antimonic is incorrect then the baas is autographic. sent21: if the hamster foliates it is a penology. sent22: the helleborine is a crewman and is a penology if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a digitigrade. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there are non-digitigrade things.

there are non-digitigrade things.

the helleborine is a crewman and is a penology if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a digitigrade.

the chaperon reconvenes mismatched.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a furrow and does not reconvene mismatched. sent2: there exists something such that it does not soften Guest. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a dominant and it is not a scorpionfish. sent4: the chaperon is a kind of a banning-order if something that does not soften tambour is prosthodontics. sent5: that the chaperon liquefies is not false. sent6: the chaperon is a furrow if something that does soften Guest is not mature. sent7: there exists something such that it does not reconvene mismatched and is not a furrow. sent8: that the chaperon softens Guest is not wrong if it softens doubleton. sent9: something is a furrow but it does not reconvene mismatched. sent10: the chaperon does reconvene mismatched if it is a kind of a furrow. sent11: something does reconvene mismatched but it is not a kind of a furrow. sent12: the fact that that something does reconvene mismatched and it is binucleate hold is false if that it is not a Hemigalus hold. sent13: something does not soften Guest and it does not mature. sent14: the chaperon does soften Guest if the individual furrows.

{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{EE}x & ¬{ET}x) sent4: (x): (¬{HP}x & {BT}x) -> {GG}{a} sent5: {FC}{a} sent6: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent8: {GQ}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent11: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent13: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: {A}{b} -> {AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the chaperon does soften Guest.

{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chaperon reconvenes mismatched. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a furrow and does not reconvene mismatched. sent2: there exists something such that it does not soften Guest. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a dominant and it is not a scorpionfish. sent4: the chaperon is a kind of a banning-order if something that does not soften tambour is prosthodontics. sent5: that the chaperon liquefies is not false. sent6: the chaperon is a furrow if something that does soften Guest is not mature. sent7: there exists something such that it does not reconvene mismatched and is not a furrow. sent8: that the chaperon softens Guest is not wrong if it softens doubleton. sent9: something is a furrow but it does not reconvene mismatched. sent10: the chaperon does reconvene mismatched if it is a kind of a furrow. sent11: something does reconvene mismatched but it is not a kind of a furrow. sent12: the fact that that something does reconvene mismatched and it is binucleate hold is false if that it is not a Hemigalus hold. sent13: something does not soften Guest and it does not mature. sent14: the chaperon does soften Guest if the individual furrows. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a dominant and it is not a scorpionfish.

there exists something such that it is not a dominant and it is not a scorpionfish.

the fact that that something does reconvene mismatched and it is binucleate hold is false if that it is not a Hemigalus hold.

that there is something such that it is an octahedron and it is a Molossidae is not correct.

sent1: the fact that the martingale is cyclonic thing that does soften martingale is not right if there exists something such that it does not reconvene secretary. sent2: something that does not regret Ancylostomatidae is a kind of an octahedron. sent3: the fact that the nafcillin is a kind of an octahedron is correct. sent4: the dibucaine does not soften boldface and is a kind of a tack. sent5: the lenticel is an octahedron. sent6: there exists something such that it is a simple and it is a kind of a cytostome. sent7: that the martingale does assimilate is not false. sent8: something is Anglo-catholic and softens impishness. sent9: if something does not soften martingale then the fact that it regrets Ancylostomatidae and it is not amphoteric is incorrect. sent10: if the dibucaine does not soften boldface and is a tack it does not reconvene secretary. sent11: if the fact that something is cyclonic and softens martingale is incorrect it does not softens martingale. sent12: the martingale is a Molossidae. sent13: there exists something such that it shimmies and it does glimpse lenticel. sent14: if the fact that the martingale does regret Ancylostomatidae but it is non-amphoteric does not hold then the contestant does not regret Ancylostomatidae. sent15: the martingale is a antediluvian. sent16: the martingale is a kind of an octahedron. sent17: there exists something such that it incubates and it is bidirectional. sent18: there is something such that it is a kind of a Molossidae. sent19: something is an octahedron. sent20: the Shudra is a kind of a Molossidae.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({G}{a} & {E}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}x sent3: {A}{iq} sent4: (¬{I}{b} & {H}{b}) sent5: {A}{da} sent6: (Ex): ({ID}x & {BL}x) sent7: {EU}{a} sent8: (Ex): ({IB}x & {FH}x) sent9: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: (¬{I}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent11: (x): ¬({G}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x sent12: {B}{a} sent13: (Ex): ({IU}x & {AG}x) sent14: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{bl} sent15: {HG}{a} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: (Ex): ({FF}x & {BP}x) sent18: (Ex): {B}x sent19: (Ex): {A}x sent20: {B}{n}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the contestant is a Molossidae hold.

{B}{bl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it is an octahedron and it is a Molossidae is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the martingale is cyclonic thing that does soften martingale is not right if there exists something such that it does not reconvene secretary. sent2: something that does not regret Ancylostomatidae is a kind of an octahedron. sent3: the fact that the nafcillin is a kind of an octahedron is correct. sent4: the dibucaine does not soften boldface and is a kind of a tack. sent5: the lenticel is an octahedron. sent6: there exists something such that it is a simple and it is a kind of a cytostome. sent7: that the martingale does assimilate is not false. sent8: something is Anglo-catholic and softens impishness. sent9: if something does not soften martingale then the fact that it regrets Ancylostomatidae and it is not amphoteric is incorrect. sent10: if the dibucaine does not soften boldface and is a tack it does not reconvene secretary. sent11: if the fact that something is cyclonic and softens martingale is incorrect it does not softens martingale. sent12: the martingale is a Molossidae. sent13: there exists something such that it shimmies and it does glimpse lenticel. sent14: if the fact that the martingale does regret Ancylostomatidae but it is non-amphoteric does not hold then the contestant does not regret Ancylostomatidae. sent15: the martingale is a antediluvian. sent16: the martingale is a kind of an octahedron. sent17: there exists something such that it incubates and it is bidirectional. sent18: there is something such that it is a kind of a Molossidae. sent19: something is an octahedron. sent20: the Shudra is a kind of a Molossidae. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent12 -> int1: the martingale is a kind of an octahedron and it is a Molossidae.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the martingale is a kind of an octahedron.

the martingale is a kind of an octahedron.

the martingale is a Molossidae.

the plainclothesman is fiscal.

sent1: if something is not unrespectable then it is not a huitre. sent2: the g does not soften Yellowknife if there exists something such that the fact that it soften Yellowknife and it is postprandial does not hold. sent3: if something softens Yellowknife or it is not a Mossbauer or both it is not unrespectable. sent4: something softens Yellowknife and/or is not a Mossbauer if it is not postprandial. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is not a lull and it is not a T-bill. sent6: the cycloserine is a huitre and it is unrespectable if the g does not soften Yellowknife. sent7: that something is both not a company and not defiant is incorrect if it does draw. sent8: the fact that the LH softens Yellowknife and is postprandial is not right. sent9: if something that is a Ichneumonidae unfurls then it is not postprandial. sent10: that the g is a kind of a Ichneumonidae that unfurls hold. sent11: if that the cycloserine draws but it is not fiscal is wrong the plainclothesman is fiscal. sent12: if the fact that something is not a lull and not a T-bill does not hold then it is not fiscal.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the cardsharp is not a company and it is not defiant does not hold.

¬(¬{DP}{dp} & ¬{HM}{dp})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plainclothesman is fiscal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not unrespectable then it is not a huitre. sent2: the g does not soften Yellowknife if there exists something such that the fact that it soften Yellowknife and it is postprandial does not hold. sent3: if something softens Yellowknife or it is not a Mossbauer or both it is not unrespectable. sent4: something softens Yellowknife and/or is not a Mossbauer if it is not postprandial. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is not a lull and it is not a T-bill. sent6: the cycloserine is a huitre and it is unrespectable if the g does not soften Yellowknife. sent7: that something is both not a company and not defiant is incorrect if it does draw. sent8: the fact that the LH softens Yellowknife and is postprandial is not right. sent9: if something that is a Ichneumonidae unfurls then it is not postprandial. sent10: that the g is a kind of a Ichneumonidae that unfurls hold. sent11: if that the cycloserine draws but it is not fiscal is wrong the plainclothesman is fiscal. sent12: if the fact that something is not a lull and not a T-bill does not hold then it is not fiscal. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: if that the plainclothesman is both not a lull and not a T-bill is wrong it is not fiscal.; sent5 -> int2: the fact that the plainclothesman is both not a lull and not a T-bill does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a lull and not a T-bill does not hold then it is not fiscal.

if the fact that something is not a lull and not a T-bill does not hold then it is not fiscal.

there exists nothing such that it is not a lull and it is not a T-bill.

that the catalyticness occurs is not false.

sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ¬(¬{HU} & ¬{IM}) sent3: ¬(¬{FA} & ¬{AN}) -> {EO} sent4: {BG} -> ¬({JC} & ¬{CL}) sent5: {EJ} -> ¬({ID} & ¬{IE}) sent6: {CJ} -> ¬(¬{GF} & ¬{IT}) sent7: {HE} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬(¬{DH} & ¬{BO}) sent10: {GF} sent11: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬(¬{EG} & ¬{GK}) sent13: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent14: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the catalyticness occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the factor occurs.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is wrong.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs.

The factor occurs if the ankylosing occurs.

the ankylosing happens.

that the catalyticness occurs is not false.

sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ¬(¬{HU} & ¬{IM}) sent3: ¬(¬{FA} & ¬{AN}) -> {EO} sent4: {BG} -> ¬({JC} & ¬{CL}) sent5: {EJ} -> ¬({ID} & ¬{IE}) sent6: {CJ} -> ¬(¬{GF} & ¬{IT}) sent7: {HE} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬(¬{DH} & ¬{BO}) sent10: {GF} sent11: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬(¬{EG} & ¬{GK}) sent13: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent14: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the catalyticness occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the factor occurs.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is wrong.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs.

The factor can occur if the ankylosing occurs.

the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs.

that the catalyticness occurs is not false.

sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs.

{E}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ¬(¬{HU} & ¬{IM}) sent3: ¬(¬{FA} & ¬{AN}) -> {EO} sent4: {BG} -> ¬({JC} & ¬{CL}) sent5: {EJ} -> ¬({ID} & ¬{IE}) sent6: {CJ} -> ¬(¬{GF} & ¬{IT}) sent7: {HE} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬(¬{DH} & ¬{BO}) sent10: {GF} sent11: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬(¬{EG} & ¬{GK}) sent13: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent14: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the catalyticness occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs. sent2: the fact that both the non-calciferousness and the non-baboonishness occurs is not right. sent3: the fibrinousness happens if the fact that the manumission does not occur and the ELISA does not occur is false. sent4: if the fact that the botulinalness happens is not wrong the fact that the birding but not the translatableness happens is not right. sent5: if the zygodactylness happens that the fact that the robustness but not the self-discipline occurs is not right hold. sent6: the fact that if the softening cannery occurs the fact that the fact that the freemail does not occur and the corvineness does not occur is not true is correct is right. sent7: the rainstorm happens. sent8: the ankylosing happens. sent9: the fact that the arousal does not occur and the softening boliviano does not occur is false. sent10: the freemail happens. sent11: if the factoring happens the fact that the glimpsing biotite occurs but the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that the updraft does not occur and the proconsulship does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs. sent14: the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not right if the factor occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the factor occurs.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is wrong.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the ankylosing occurs the factor occurs.

The factor will occur if the ankylosing occurs.

if the fact that the glimpsing biotite does not occur and the glimpsing samisen does not occur is not correct then the catalyticness occurs.

the fact that the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzle is not right is true.

sent1: if that the allemande is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles does not hold the nyala is a kind of a audiometry. sent2: if the air-intake does soften tyrant the tyrant frizzles. sent3: if the allemande is not a audiometry then the air-intake softens tyrant. sent4: if the allemande does outride then that the air-intake does not soften tyrant is wrong. sent5: something does outride and/or it is not a kind of a vacuole if it is a audiometry. sent6: that something is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles is not correct if it softens tyrant. sent7: the allemande outrides and/or is not a audiometry. sent8: if the tyrant frizzles the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzles is not true.

¬({E}{d} & ¬{D}{d})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the nyala outrides or is not a vacuole or both.

({A}{gk} v ¬{IQ}{gk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzle is not right is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the allemande is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles does not hold the nyala is a kind of a audiometry. sent2: if the air-intake does soften tyrant the tyrant frizzles. sent3: if the allemande is not a audiometry then the air-intake softens tyrant. sent4: if the allemande does outride then that the air-intake does not soften tyrant is wrong. sent5: something does outride and/or it is not a kind of a vacuole if it is a audiometry. sent6: that something is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles is not correct if it softens tyrant. sent7: the allemande outrides and/or is not a audiometry. sent8: if the tyrant frizzles the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzles is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the air-intake softens tyrant.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the tyrant frizzles.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the allemande outrides and/or is not a audiometry.

The allemande is not a audiometry.

if the allemande does outride then that the air-intake does not soften tyrant is wrong.

the fact that the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzle is not right is true.

sent1: if that the allemande is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles does not hold the nyala is a kind of a audiometry. sent2: if the air-intake does soften tyrant the tyrant frizzles. sent3: if the allemande is not a audiometry then the air-intake softens tyrant. sent4: if the allemande does outride then that the air-intake does not soften tyrant is wrong. sent5: something does outride and/or it is not a kind of a vacuole if it is a audiometry. sent6: that something is not a kind of a audiometry but it frizzles is not correct if it softens tyrant. sent7: the allemande outrides and/or is not a audiometry. sent8: if the tyrant frizzles the fact that the antinomian is a unnaturalness and does not frizzles is not true.

¬({E}{d} & ¬{D}{d})

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

PROVED

PROVED