Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the nonprofessionalness does not occur.

sent1: the leapfrog occurs if the snorting does not occur. sent2: that the regretting pace does not occur is prevented by that the radicalizing does not occur and/or the softening baronetcy. sent3: either the radicalizing does not occur or the softening baronetcy occurs or both. sent4: if the regretting pace happens the nonprofessionalness happens.

¬{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the nonprofessionalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the leapfrog occurs if the snorting does not occur. sent2: that the regretting pace does not occur is prevented by that the radicalizing does not occur and/or the softening baronetcy. sent3: either the radicalizing does not occur or the softening baronetcy occurs or both. sent4: if the regretting pace happens the nonprofessionalness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the regretting pace occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the regretting pace does not occur is prevented by that the radicalizing does not occur and/or the softening baronetcy.

The regretting pace is prevented by the fact that the radicalizing does not happen.

if the regretting pace happens the nonprofessionalness happens.

the hairdo is not a Okinawa.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the filovirus is both a physiotherapy and not an efficacy is not correct.

¬({A}{ip} & ¬{DA}{ip})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hairdo is not a Okinawa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that if the gar is a kind of the physiotherapy that the gar is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate is incorrect is right.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the gar is a physiotherapy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gar is diurnal but it does not palpitate does not hold.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy.

It doesn't hold if something is a kind of diurnal thing that doesn't palpitate.

there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold.

the hairdo is not a Okinawa.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the filovirus is both a physiotherapy and not an efficacy is not correct.

¬({A}{ip} & ¬{DA}{ip})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hairdo is not a Okinawa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that if the gar is a kind of the physiotherapy that the gar is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate is incorrect is right.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the gar is a physiotherapy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gar is diurnal but it does not palpitate does not hold.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy.

It doesn't hold if it is a kind of diurnal thing that doesn't palpitate.

if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy.

the hairdo is not a Okinawa.

sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy.

¬{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the filovirus is both a physiotherapy and not an efficacy is not correct.

¬({A}{ip} & ¬{DA}{ip})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hairdo is not a Okinawa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy. sent2: the gar does palpitate if there is something such that it is not a Okinawa. sent3: the gar is not a Okinawa if the hairdo is not diurnal. sent4: if something is not a Okinawa then that it is a physiotherapy and it is not an efficacy is not correct. sent5: if something is a hike then the fact that it is a crocheting and not a Braga is incorrect. sent6: something is a hydantoin and is not a kind of a physiotherapy. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin that is not a kind of a physiotherapy does not hold. sent8: if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa. sent9: everything is a kind of a classic and it is not a Belonidae. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hydantoin and is not a physiotherapy does not hold the gar is a physiotherapy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the fact that if the gar is a kind of the physiotherapy that the gar is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate is incorrect is right.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the gar is a physiotherapy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gar is diurnal but it does not palpitate does not hold.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is a kind of diurnal thing that does not palpitate does not hold if it is a kind of a physiotherapy.

It doesn't hold if it's a kind of diurnal thing that doesn't palpitate.

if the fact that that the gar is diurnal and does not palpitate does not hold is not incorrect the hairdo is not a Okinawa.

the fact that there is something such that it is not ventricular and/or it is not a Kilimanjaro is not right.

sent1: The Siberian glimpses sylvite. sent2: something is ventricular or it is not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent3: something is not ventricular and/or is a Kilimanjaro. sent4: if that the sylvite does glimpse Siberian hold the Siberian is ventricular or not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent5: if something is revolutionary it does not glimpse Siberian or is not a kind of a acatalectic or both. sent6: if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian the Siberian is not ventricular or a Kilimanjaro or both. sent7: everything is not a kind of a retort. sent8: if the sylvite is ventricular then the Siberian is not a Kilimanjaro and/or it does not glimpse Siberian. sent9: something is a citrulline and/or not a laryngismus. sent10: the Siberian is not ventricular and/or is a kind of a Kilimanjaro. sent11: the sylvite glimpses Siberian. sent12: there exists something such that it is a Kilimanjaro and/or does not glimpse Siberian. sent13: the dotard is ventricular. sent14: either the Siberian is ventricular or it is not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent15: the Siberian is not ventricular and/or it is not a kind of a Kilimanjaro if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian. sent16: something either does not glimpse Siberian or is not ventricular or both.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))

sent1: {AC}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent4: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: (x): {B}x -> (¬{A}x v ¬{GB}x) sent6: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{D}x sent8: {AA}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (Ex): ({CN}x v ¬{GU}x) sent10: (¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: (Ex): ({AB}x v ¬{A}x) sent13: {AA}{as} sent14: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent15: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent16: (Ex): (¬{A}x v ¬{AA}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sylvite does not glimpse Siberian or it is not a acatalectic or both.

(¬{A}{a} v ¬{GB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is not ventricular and/or it is not a Kilimanjaro is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Siberian glimpses sylvite. sent2: something is ventricular or it is not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent3: something is not ventricular and/or is a Kilimanjaro. sent4: if that the sylvite does glimpse Siberian hold the Siberian is ventricular or not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent5: if something is revolutionary it does not glimpse Siberian or is not a kind of a acatalectic or both. sent6: if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian the Siberian is not ventricular or a Kilimanjaro or both. sent7: everything is not a kind of a retort. sent8: if the sylvite is ventricular then the Siberian is not a Kilimanjaro and/or it does not glimpse Siberian. sent9: something is a citrulline and/or not a laryngismus. sent10: the Siberian is not ventricular and/or is a kind of a Kilimanjaro. sent11: the sylvite glimpses Siberian. sent12: there exists something such that it is a Kilimanjaro and/or does not glimpse Siberian. sent13: the dotard is ventricular. sent14: either the Siberian is ventricular or it is not a Kilimanjaro or both. sent15: the Siberian is not ventricular and/or it is not a kind of a Kilimanjaro if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian. sent16: something either does not glimpse Siberian or is not ventricular or both. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: either the Siberian is not ventricular or it is not a Kilimanjaro or both.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Siberian is not ventricular and/or it is not a kind of a Kilimanjaro if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian.

the Siberian is not ventricular and/or it is not a kind of a Kilimanjaro if the sylvite does glimpse Siberian.

the sylvite glimpses Siberian.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar is either a Ball or alkylic.

if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar can be either a Ball or alkylic.

if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar can either be a Ball or alkylic.

the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar is either a ball or alkylic.

if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar is either a Ball oralkylic.

if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous.

the bastion is not low-resolution.

sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous.

¬{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the bastion is low-resolution.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bastion is not low-resolution. ; $context$ = sent1: the bastion is not a Ball if the Lascar is not a Ball but alkylic. sent2: if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution. sent3: the bola is tuberous and/or it is not a pintle. sent4: the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both. sent5: if the Lascar is alkylic then the bastion is a studio. sent6: if the fact that the Lascar is low-resolution is right then the bastion is low-resolution. sent7: if the bola is not a pintle the bastion is tuberous. sent8: if the Lascar is a Ball then the bastion is a kind of a studio. sent9: if the bola is tuberous then the bastion is tuberous. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the bastion is a studio.; sent3 & sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the bastion is tuberous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the bastion is both a studio and tuberous.; sent2 -> int4: if the bastion is both a studio and tuberous it is not low-resolution.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lascar either is a kind of a Ball or is alkylic or both.

The Lascar is either a Ball or a alkylic.

if something that is a studio is tuberous then it is not low-resolution.

the fact that the softening Heimdall does not occur hold.

sent1: if the five-hitter does not occur the antidotalness and the softening Heimdall occurs. sent2: the runicness happens. sent3: that the atomisticness does not occur is true. sent4: that the antidotalness and the five-hitter happens prevents the softening Heimdall. sent5: the reconvening dowse happens. sent6: the amaranthineness happens. sent7: the ATM occurs. sent8: the glimpsing coronary occurs. sent9: both the glimpsing Azeri and the auditoriness happens. sent10: if the summating happens and the quarterback occurs then the drill does not occur. sent11: the glimpsing Merrimack and the rugby occurs. sent12: the five-hitter occurs. sent13: the softening July does not occur. sent14: that the antidotalness occurs hold. sent15: that the five-hitter does not occur and the denotativeness occurs is triggered by the landfall. sent16: the cricket does not occur if the drollery occurs and the rattling happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent2: {DO} sent3: ¬{IK} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {DL} sent6: {HK} sent7: {EH} sent8: {BS} sent9: ({CI} & {IS}) sent10: ({AR} & {FG}) -> ¬{EU} sent11: ({FM} & {FN}) sent12: {B} sent13: ¬{CD} sent14: {A} sent15: {E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent16: ({EM} & {IR}) -> ¬{H}

PROVED

PROVED

the softening Heimdall occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the softening Heimdall does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the five-hitter does not occur the antidotalness and the softening Heimdall occurs. sent2: the runicness happens. sent3: that the atomisticness does not occur is true. sent4: that the antidotalness and the five-hitter happens prevents the softening Heimdall. sent5: the reconvening dowse happens. sent6: the amaranthineness happens. sent7: the ATM occurs. sent8: the glimpsing coronary occurs. sent9: both the glimpsing Azeri and the auditoriness happens. sent10: if the summating happens and the quarterback occurs then the drill does not occur. sent11: the glimpsing Merrimack and the rugby occurs. sent12: the five-hitter occurs. sent13: the softening July does not occur. sent14: that the antidotalness occurs hold. sent15: that the five-hitter does not occur and the denotativeness occurs is triggered by the landfall. sent16: the cricket does not occur if the drollery occurs and the rattling happens. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent12 -> int1: both the antidotalness and the five-hitter occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the antidotalness occurs hold.

The antidotalness holds.

the five-hitter occurs.

the fact that the softening Heimdall does not occur hold.

sent1: if the five-hitter does not occur the antidotalness and the softening Heimdall occurs. sent2: the runicness happens. sent3: that the atomisticness does not occur is true. sent4: that the antidotalness and the five-hitter happens prevents the softening Heimdall. sent5: the reconvening dowse happens. sent6: the amaranthineness happens. sent7: the ATM occurs. sent8: the glimpsing coronary occurs. sent9: both the glimpsing Azeri and the auditoriness happens. sent10: if the summating happens and the quarterback occurs then the drill does not occur. sent11: the glimpsing Merrimack and the rugby occurs. sent12: the five-hitter occurs. sent13: the softening July does not occur. sent14: that the antidotalness occurs hold. sent15: that the five-hitter does not occur and the denotativeness occurs is triggered by the landfall. sent16: the cricket does not occur if the drollery occurs and the rattling happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent2: {DO} sent3: ¬{IK} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {DL} sent6: {HK} sent7: {EH} sent8: {BS} sent9: ({CI} & {IS}) sent10: ({AR} & {FG}) -> ¬{EU} sent11: ({FM} & {FN}) sent12: {B} sent13: ¬{CD} sent14: {A} sent15: {E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent16: ({EM} & {IR}) -> ¬{H}

PROVED

PROVED

the softening Heimdall occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the softening Heimdall does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the five-hitter does not occur the antidotalness and the softening Heimdall occurs. sent2: the runicness happens. sent3: that the atomisticness does not occur is true. sent4: that the antidotalness and the five-hitter happens prevents the softening Heimdall. sent5: the reconvening dowse happens. sent6: the amaranthineness happens. sent7: the ATM occurs. sent8: the glimpsing coronary occurs. sent9: both the glimpsing Azeri and the auditoriness happens. sent10: if the summating happens and the quarterback occurs then the drill does not occur. sent11: the glimpsing Merrimack and the rugby occurs. sent12: the five-hitter occurs. sent13: the softening July does not occur. sent14: that the antidotalness occurs hold. sent15: that the five-hitter does not occur and the denotativeness occurs is triggered by the landfall. sent16: the cricket does not occur if the drollery occurs and the rattling happens. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent12 -> int1: both the antidotalness and the five-hitter occurs.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the antidotalness occurs hold.

The antidotalness is held.

that the antidotalness and the five-hitter happens prevents the softening Heimdall.

that the hawk's-beard is not a Spode is not false.

sent1: the showpiece does not soften boilerplate and is not a hit. sent2: if the Mormons is judicial then the awlwort does soften Finnish. sent3: something is a kind of a sword-cut that is not a kind of a Timorese if it does soften Finnish. sent4: that the showpiece does not reconvene smirk hold if there is something such that the fact that it reconvene smirk and is not paralytic does not hold. sent5: the Mormons is judicial. sent6: the showpiece is not a nova and does not reconvene ejection. sent7: the showpiece is not a Spode if the hawk's-beard is not a nova and does not reconvene ejection. sent8: if the fact that the Pekinese reconvenes Koch and is not qualitative is not right then the telluride is not qualitative. sent9: if the Pekinese is not a sword-cut that it does reconvene Koch and is not qualitative does not hold. sent10: the hawk's-beard is not a Spode if the showpiece is not a nova and reconvenes ejection. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Hasidim. sent12: the hawk's-beard does not reconvene ejection. sent13: that if the showpiece is not a nova and it does not reconvene ejection then the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a Spode hold. sent14: the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a nova. sent15: the fact that the apron does reconvene smirk but it is not a paralytic is not correct if the telluride is not qualitative. sent16: if the showpiece is a nova and does not reconvene ejection the fact that the hawk's-beard is not a Spode is true. sent17: the Pekinese is not a sword-cut if the awlwort is a sword-cut and is not Timorese.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: (¬{FN}{a} & ¬{FO}{a}) sent2: {L}{h} -> {K}{g} sent3: (x): {K}x -> ({G}x & ¬{I}x) sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: {L}{h} sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬({F}{e} & ¬{D}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent9: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬({F}{e} & ¬{D}{e}) sent10: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: (Ex): {J}x sent12: ¬{AB}{b} sent13: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: ¬{AA}{b} sent15: ¬{D}{d} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent16: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent17: ({G}{g} & ¬{I}{g}) -> ¬{G}{e}

PROVED

PROVED

that the hawk's-beard is a Spode is not wrong.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the hawk's-beard is not a Spode is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the showpiece does not soften boilerplate and is not a hit. sent2: if the Mormons is judicial then the awlwort does soften Finnish. sent3: something is a kind of a sword-cut that is not a kind of a Timorese if it does soften Finnish. sent4: that the showpiece does not reconvene smirk hold if there is something such that the fact that it reconvene smirk and is not paralytic does not hold. sent5: the Mormons is judicial. sent6: the showpiece is not a nova and does not reconvene ejection. sent7: the showpiece is not a Spode if the hawk's-beard is not a nova and does not reconvene ejection. sent8: if the fact that the Pekinese reconvenes Koch and is not qualitative is not right then the telluride is not qualitative. sent9: if the Pekinese is not a sword-cut that it does reconvene Koch and is not qualitative does not hold. sent10: the hawk's-beard is not a Spode if the showpiece is not a nova and reconvenes ejection. sent11: there exists something such that it is a Hasidim. sent12: the hawk's-beard does not reconvene ejection. sent13: that if the showpiece is not a nova and it does not reconvene ejection then the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a Spode hold. sent14: the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a nova. sent15: the fact that the apron does reconvene smirk but it is not a paralytic is not correct if the telluride is not qualitative. sent16: if the showpiece is a nova and does not reconvene ejection the fact that the hawk's-beard is not a Spode is true. sent17: the Pekinese is not a sword-cut if the awlwort is a sword-cut and is not Timorese. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that if the showpiece is not a nova and it does not reconvene ejection then the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a Spode hold.

that if the showpiece is not a nova and it does not reconvene ejection then the hawk's-beard is not a kind of a Spode hold.

the showpiece is not a nova and does not reconvene ejection.

that the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment is not correct.

sent1: if that the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment is correct then the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent2: something glimpses enlightenment if it does not soften Brassia or glimpses enlightenment or both. sent3: if the pushover does not soften Brassia the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment and does not soften Brassia. sent4: the scenery does not soften Brassia. sent5: the behaviorist does not vitrify and is not non-younger. sent6: something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold. sent7: the omnivore does glimpse enlightenment and softens Brassia if it is not unnatural. sent8: the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent9: the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment if the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment. sent10: the behaviorist softens Bartok if it does not vitrify and is younger. sent11: if something is not unnatural either it does not soften Brassia or it does glimpse enlightenment or both. sent12: the pitprop softens Brassia and is unnatural.

¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the pushover is not a spray and it does not glimpse enlightenment is false.

¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment is correct then the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent2: something glimpses enlightenment if it does not soften Brassia or glimpses enlightenment or both. sent3: if the pushover does not soften Brassia the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment and does not soften Brassia. sent4: the scenery does not soften Brassia. sent5: the behaviorist does not vitrify and is not non-younger. sent6: something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold. sent7: the omnivore does glimpse enlightenment and softens Brassia if it is not unnatural. sent8: the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent9: the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment if the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment. sent10: the behaviorist softens Bartok if it does not vitrify and is younger. sent11: if something is not unnatural either it does not soften Brassia or it does glimpse enlightenment or both. sent12: the pitprop softens Brassia and is unnatural. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the pitprop does soften Brassia then it does not glimpse enlightenment.; sent12 -> int2: the pitprop does soften Brassia.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold.

If enlightenment is softened by Brassia hold, something doesn't see it.

the pitprop softens Brassia and is unnatural.

that the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment is not correct.

sent1: if that the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment is correct then the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent2: something glimpses enlightenment if it does not soften Brassia or glimpses enlightenment or both. sent3: if the pushover does not soften Brassia the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment and does not soften Brassia. sent4: the scenery does not soften Brassia. sent5: the behaviorist does not vitrify and is not non-younger. sent6: something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold. sent7: the omnivore does glimpse enlightenment and softens Brassia if it is not unnatural. sent8: the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent9: the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment if the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment. sent10: the behaviorist softens Bartok if it does not vitrify and is younger. sent11: if something is not unnatural either it does not soften Brassia or it does glimpse enlightenment or both. sent12: the pitprop softens Brassia and is unnatural.

¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the pushover is not a spray and it does not glimpse enlightenment is false.

¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment is correct then the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent2: something glimpses enlightenment if it does not soften Brassia or glimpses enlightenment or both. sent3: if the pushover does not soften Brassia the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment and does not soften Brassia. sent4: the scenery does not soften Brassia. sent5: the behaviorist does not vitrify and is not non-younger. sent6: something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold. sent7: the omnivore does glimpse enlightenment and softens Brassia if it is not unnatural. sent8: the pushover does not glimpse enlightenment. sent9: the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment if the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment. sent10: the behaviorist softens Bartok if it does not vitrify and is younger. sent11: if something is not unnatural either it does not soften Brassia or it does glimpse enlightenment or both. sent12: the pitprop softens Brassia and is unnatural. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: if the pitprop does soften Brassia then it does not glimpse enlightenment.; sent12 -> int2: the pitprop does soften Brassia.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not glimpse enlightenment if that it softens Brassia hold.

If enlightenment is softened by Brassia hold, it doesn't see it.

the pushover is not a spray and does not glimpse enlightenment if the pitprop does not glimpse enlightenment.

there exists something such that it is either not a chitchat or not androgenetic or both.

sent1: the galvanization is not possessive if the exchanger is possessive thing that is a kind of a twenty-twenty. sent2: there is something such that it does glimpse galvanization. sent3: the galvanization is not a kind of a chitchat and/or is not archegonial. sent4: something is not organismal if it is androgenetic. sent5: the galvanization is not androgenetic if the fact that something is not a kind of an herbal but it is microbial is not incorrect. sent6: the galvanization is a saute or not a hush or both. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not an herbal but microbial is not wrong. sent8: the galvanization is not microbial. sent9: the galvanization is not a chitchat or it is androgenetic or both. sent10: there is something such that it is not depressant or it is non-Ismaili or both. sent11: something is a chitchat or is not androgenetic or both. sent12: a non-possessive thing penetrates and is a chitchat.

(Ex): (¬{B}x v ¬{A}x)

sent1: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: (Ex): {C}x sent3: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{GG}{a}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{EH}x sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ({DO}{a} v ¬{HG}{a}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (¬{B}{a} v {A}{a}) sent10: (Ex): (¬{JH}x v ¬{HA}x) sent11: (Ex): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({HC}x & {B}x)

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it is not organismal and penetrates.

(Ex): (¬{EH}x & {HC}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is either not a chitchat or not androgenetic or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the galvanization is not possessive if the exchanger is possessive thing that is a kind of a twenty-twenty. sent2: there is something such that it does glimpse galvanization. sent3: the galvanization is not a kind of a chitchat and/or is not archegonial. sent4: something is not organismal if it is androgenetic. sent5: the galvanization is not androgenetic if the fact that something is not a kind of an herbal but it is microbial is not incorrect. sent6: the galvanization is a saute or not a hush or both. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not an herbal but microbial is not wrong. sent8: the galvanization is not microbial. sent9: the galvanization is not a chitchat or it is androgenetic or both. sent10: there is something such that it is not depressant or it is non-Ismaili or both. sent11: something is a chitchat or is not androgenetic or both. sent12: a non-possessive thing penetrates and is a chitchat. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the galvanization is not androgenetic.; int1 -> int2: the galvanization is not a chitchat or it is not androgenetic or both.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is not an herbal but microbial is not wrong.

there exists something such that that it is not an herbal but microbial is not wrong.

the galvanization is not androgenetic if the fact that something is not a kind of an herbal but it is microbial is not incorrect.

the mousetrap is unresentful.

sent1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful. sent2: there is something such that it is unresentful. sent3: there exists something such that it is not Puranic. sent4: if something is opportune then that it is not a communist is not incorrect. sent5: if the mousetrap is not a sidelight it is a kind of a jetsam. sent6: either the terrace does soften moonshine or it is not a kind of a forefoot or both. sent7: the fact that if there is something such that it is not Puranic the mousetrap either is not Puranic or is not boreal or both is right.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: ¬{GP}{a} -> {EJ}{a} sent6: ({IM}{he} v ¬{HD}{he}) sent7: (x): ¬{AA}x -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the mousetrap is not unresentful.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mousetrap is unresentful. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful. sent2: there is something such that it is unresentful. sent3: there exists something such that it is not Puranic. sent4: if something is opportune then that it is not a communist is not incorrect. sent5: if the mousetrap is not a sidelight it is a kind of a jetsam. sent6: either the terrace does soften moonshine or it is not a kind of a forefoot or both. sent7: the fact that if there is something such that it is not Puranic the mousetrap either is not Puranic or is not boreal or both is right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mousetrap is not unresentful.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal does not hold.; sent3 & sent7 -> int2: either the mousetrap is not Puranic or it is not boreal or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful.

If the mousetrap is not unresentful, it is false.

there exists something such that it is not Puranic.

the mousetrap is unresentful.

sent1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful. sent2: there is something such that it is unresentful. sent3: there exists something such that it is not Puranic. sent4: if something is opportune then that it is not a communist is not incorrect. sent5: if the mousetrap is not a sidelight it is a kind of a jetsam. sent6: either the terrace does soften moonshine or it is not a kind of a forefoot or both. sent7: the fact that if there is something such that it is not Puranic the mousetrap either is not Puranic or is not boreal or both is right.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: ¬{GP}{a} -> {EJ}{a} sent6: ({IM}{he} v ¬{HD}{he}) sent7: (x): ¬{AA}x -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the mousetrap is not unresentful.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mousetrap is unresentful. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful. sent2: there is something such that it is unresentful. sent3: there exists something such that it is not Puranic. sent4: if something is opportune then that it is not a communist is not incorrect. sent5: if the mousetrap is not a sidelight it is a kind of a jetsam. sent6: either the terrace does soften moonshine or it is not a kind of a forefoot or both. sent7: the fact that if there is something such that it is not Puranic the mousetrap either is not Puranic or is not boreal or both is right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mousetrap is not unresentful.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal does not hold.; sent3 & sent7 -> int2: either the mousetrap is not Puranic or it is not boreal or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the mousetrap is not Puranic and/or is not boreal is false if it is not unresentful.

If the mousetrap is not unresentful, then it is false.

the fact that if there is something such that it is not Puranic the mousetrap either is not Puranic or is not boreal or both is right.

that the crush is not fewest is correct.

sent1: something is not a Wagnerian but it is catkinate. sent2: the fact that the cowslip is not unprophetic and berths is not correct. sent3: the crush is not fewest if there is something such that the fact that it is prophetic thing that berths is wrong.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (Ex): (¬{AL}x & {GH}x) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the crush is not fewest is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a Wagnerian but it is catkinate. sent2: the fact that the cowslip is not unprophetic and berths is not correct. sent3: the crush is not fewest if there is something such that the fact that it is prophetic thing that berths is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it is not unprophetic and it berths is not right.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the cowslip is not unprophetic and berths is not correct.

the fact that the cowslip is not unprophetic and berths is not correct.

the crush is not fewest if there is something such that the fact that it is prophetic thing that berths is wrong.

the Pilate is combinative.

sent1: the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery is not true the fact that the Pilate is a petrissage hold. sent3: if that the gempylid does not swoop and does not mutate is false then it is not restless. sent4: if something glimpses drunk then that it does not swoop and it does not mutate is not true. sent5: the mallet is combinative. sent6: if the natatorium is not restless then the fact that the eland is a kind of dichromatic thing that animates is incorrect. sent7: the Pilate is combinative if it is a livery. sent8: the Pilate is a kind of a petrissage if something is a livery. sent9: something is combinative if it is a petrissage. sent10: there is something such that that it does glimpse bluegrass and is not animating is not correct. sent11: the natatorium is not restless if the gempylid does not reconvene Belostomatidae or it is not restless or both. sent12: the mallet glimpses Sufi. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is a livery does not hold. sent14: that the mallet is a kind of alive thing that is a livery is not true. sent15: if the fact that the aquavit is a petrissage and not non-canonic does not hold then the Pilate is not combinative. sent16: the gempylid does glimpse drunk.

{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Pilate is not combinative is not wrong.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Pilate is combinative. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery is not true the fact that the Pilate is a petrissage hold. sent3: if that the gempylid does not swoop and does not mutate is false then it is not restless. sent4: if something glimpses drunk then that it does not swoop and it does not mutate is not true. sent5: the mallet is combinative. sent6: if the natatorium is not restless then the fact that the eland is a kind of dichromatic thing that animates is incorrect. sent7: the Pilate is combinative if it is a livery. sent8: the Pilate is a kind of a petrissage if something is a livery. sent9: something is combinative if it is a petrissage. sent10: there is something such that that it does glimpse bluegrass and is not animating is not correct. sent11: the natatorium is not restless if the gempylid does not reconvene Belostomatidae or it is not restless or both. sent12: the mallet glimpses Sufi. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is a livery does not hold. sent14: that the mallet is a kind of alive thing that is a livery is not true. sent15: if the fact that the aquavit is a petrissage and not non-canonic does not hold then the Pilate is not combinative. sent16: the gempylid does glimpse drunk. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Pilate is a petrissage.; sent9 -> int3: the Pilate is combinative if it is a petrissage.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong.

The fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is wrong.

if there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery is not true the fact that the Pilate is a petrissage hold.

the Pilate is combinative.

sent1: the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery is not true the fact that the Pilate is a petrissage hold. sent3: if that the gempylid does not swoop and does not mutate is false then it is not restless. sent4: if something glimpses drunk then that it does not swoop and it does not mutate is not true. sent5: the mallet is combinative. sent6: if the natatorium is not restless then the fact that the eland is a kind of dichromatic thing that animates is incorrect. sent7: the Pilate is combinative if it is a livery. sent8: the Pilate is a kind of a petrissage if something is a livery. sent9: something is combinative if it is a petrissage. sent10: there is something such that that it does glimpse bluegrass and is not animating is not correct. sent11: the natatorium is not restless if the gempylid does not reconvene Belostomatidae or it is not restless or both. sent12: the mallet glimpses Sufi. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is a livery does not hold. sent14: that the mallet is a kind of alive thing that is a livery is not true. sent15: if the fact that the aquavit is a petrissage and not non-canonic does not hold then the Pilate is not combinative. sent16: the gempylid does glimpse drunk.

{B}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Pilate is not combinative is not wrong.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Pilate is combinative. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery is not true the fact that the Pilate is a petrissage hold. sent3: if that the gempylid does not swoop and does not mutate is false then it is not restless. sent4: if something glimpses drunk then that it does not swoop and it does not mutate is not true. sent5: the mallet is combinative. sent6: if the natatorium is not restless then the fact that the eland is a kind of dichromatic thing that animates is incorrect. sent7: the Pilate is combinative if it is a livery. sent8: the Pilate is a kind of a petrissage if something is a livery. sent9: something is combinative if it is a petrissage. sent10: there is something such that that it does glimpse bluegrass and is not animating is not correct. sent11: the natatorium is not restless if the gempylid does not reconvene Belostomatidae or it is not restless or both. sent12: the mallet glimpses Sufi. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is alive and it is a livery does not hold. sent14: that the mallet is a kind of alive thing that is a livery is not true. sent15: if the fact that the aquavit is a petrissage and not non-canonic does not hold then the Pilate is not combinative. sent16: the gempylid does glimpse drunk. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is alive and it is not a livery does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Pilate is a petrissage.; sent9 -> int3: the Pilate is combinative if it is a petrissage.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is not wrong is wrong.

The fact that the mallet is alive but not a livery is incorrect.

something is combinative if it is a petrissage.

the cream is not zygomorphic and it is not a beeline.

sent1: the cream is not zygomorphic and not merciful if the artilleryman is zygomorphic. sent2: the cream is not a beeline. sent3: the cream is merciful if the artilleryman is a beeline. sent4: something that is not merciful is non-quadraphonic thing that is not passionless. sent5: if the transporter is zygomorphic then the cream is not a beeline. sent6: the transporter is zygomorphic if the artilleryman is merciful. sent7: that something is not zygomorphic and it is not a beeline is not correct if the fact that it is not merciful is not false. sent8: if the fact that something is merciful thing that does not glimpse Selene does not hold then it is merciful. sent9: the antiperspirant is zygomorphic. sent10: the artilleryman is merciful.

(¬{B}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the schlemiel is not quadraphonic and is not passionless.

(¬{ER}{go} & ¬{HB}{go})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cream is not zygomorphic and it is not a beeline. ; $context$ = sent1: the cream is not zygomorphic and not merciful if the artilleryman is zygomorphic. sent2: the cream is not a beeline. sent3: the cream is merciful if the artilleryman is a beeline. sent4: something that is not merciful is non-quadraphonic thing that is not passionless. sent5: if the transporter is zygomorphic then the cream is not a beeline. sent6: the transporter is zygomorphic if the artilleryman is merciful. sent7: that something is not zygomorphic and it is not a beeline is not correct if the fact that it is not merciful is not false. sent8: if the fact that something is merciful thing that does not glimpse Selene does not hold then it is merciful. sent9: the antiperspirant is zygomorphic. sent10: the artilleryman is merciful. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the transporter is zygomorphic if the artilleryman is merciful.

the transporter is zygomorphic if the artilleryman is merciful.

the artilleryman is merciful.

the fact that the washing happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the frontalness occurs if the normotensiveness happens. sent2: the fact that the softening housewrecker happens hold if the growling happens. sent3: the fact that the wash does not occur hold if the frontalness does not occur. sent4: that the usurpation does not occur but the distribution occurs is false. sent5: the fact that the reconvening immobilization happens is not false. sent6: the fact that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying occurs is false. sent7: if that the contagion does not occur but the obligating occurs does not hold the cursorialness happens. sent8: that the flocculating does not occur is prevented by the Gothicness. sent9: if the softening vegetarian happens the washing happens. sent10: the Tudorness happens. sent11: the fact that the reconvening keloid and the assay occurs is false. sent12: the regretting micropyle happens. sent13: the reconvening keloid prevents that the normotensiveness does not occur. sent14: the doom happens. sent15: the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false. sent16: that the glimpsing octahedron does not occur is prevented by the softening Warner. sent17: the happening happens.

{D}

sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: {DG} -> {HB} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬(¬{DB} & {IG}) sent5: {IQ} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬(¬{BF} & {DC}) -> {IH} sent8: {FA} -> {M} sent9: {C} -> {D} sent10: {AK} sent11: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent12: {J} sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: {JG} sent15: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: {AS} -> {IJ} sent17: {DP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the washing does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the washing happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the frontalness occurs if the normotensiveness happens. sent2: the fact that the softening housewrecker happens hold if the growling happens. sent3: the fact that the wash does not occur hold if the frontalness does not occur. sent4: that the usurpation does not occur but the distribution occurs is false. sent5: the fact that the reconvening immobilization happens is not false. sent6: the fact that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying occurs is false. sent7: if that the contagion does not occur but the obligating occurs does not hold the cursorialness happens. sent8: that the flocculating does not occur is prevented by the Gothicness. sent9: if the softening vegetarian happens the washing happens. sent10: the Tudorness happens. sent11: the fact that the reconvening keloid and the assay occurs is false. sent12: the regretting micropyle happens. sent13: the reconvening keloid prevents that the normotensiveness does not occur. sent14: the doom happens. sent15: the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false. sent16: that the glimpsing octahedron does not occur is prevented by the softening Warner. sent17: the happening happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false.

If the reconvening keloid is false, the normotensiveness occurs.

the fact that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying occurs is false.

the fact that the washing happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the frontalness occurs if the normotensiveness happens. sent2: the fact that the softening housewrecker happens hold if the growling happens. sent3: the fact that the wash does not occur hold if the frontalness does not occur. sent4: that the usurpation does not occur but the distribution occurs is false. sent5: the fact that the reconvening immobilization happens is not false. sent6: the fact that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying occurs is false. sent7: if that the contagion does not occur but the obligating occurs does not hold the cursorialness happens. sent8: that the flocculating does not occur is prevented by the Gothicness. sent9: if the softening vegetarian happens the washing happens. sent10: the Tudorness happens. sent11: the fact that the reconvening keloid and the assay occurs is false. sent12: the regretting micropyle happens. sent13: the reconvening keloid prevents that the normotensiveness does not occur. sent14: the doom happens. sent15: the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false. sent16: that the glimpsing octahedron does not occur is prevented by the softening Warner. sent17: the happening happens.

{D}

sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: {DG} -> {HB} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬(¬{DB} & {IG}) sent5: {IQ} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬(¬{BF} & {DC}) -> {IH} sent8: {FA} -> {M} sent9: {C} -> {D} sent10: {AK} sent11: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent12: {J} sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: {JG} sent15: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: {AS} -> {IJ} sent17: {DP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the washing does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the washing happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the frontalness occurs if the normotensiveness happens. sent2: the fact that the softening housewrecker happens hold if the growling happens. sent3: the fact that the wash does not occur hold if the frontalness does not occur. sent4: that the usurpation does not occur but the distribution occurs is false. sent5: the fact that the reconvening immobilization happens is not false. sent6: the fact that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying occurs is false. sent7: if that the contagion does not occur but the obligating occurs does not hold the cursorialness happens. sent8: that the flocculating does not occur is prevented by the Gothicness. sent9: if the softening vegetarian happens the washing happens. sent10: the Tudorness happens. sent11: the fact that the reconvening keloid and the assay occurs is false. sent12: the regretting micropyle happens. sent13: the reconvening keloid prevents that the normotensiveness does not occur. sent14: the doom happens. sent15: the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false. sent16: that the glimpsing octahedron does not occur is prevented by the softening Warner. sent17: the happening happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the normotensiveness occurs if that not the reconvening keloid but the assaying happens is false.

If the reconvening keloid is false, then the normotensiveness occurs.

the frontalness occurs if the normotensiveness happens.

the phone reconvenes incompatibility.

sent1: the phone regrets hamster and is a kind of a trochanter. sent2: something that does not soften drone does reconvene incompatibility and is a Bessera. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Ziegler then that it vouches and it does soften drone does not hold. sent4: something is a Bessera that does soften drone if it does not vouch. sent5: the abalone does vouch and it is a kind of a baseball. sent6: the fact that the gramophone vouches is true. sent7: the phone does not soften drone and does vouch.

{AA}{aa}

sent1: ({T}{aa} & {FF}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: ({B}{gi} & {DS}{gi}) sent6: {B}{fo} sent7: (¬{A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

the phone does not reconvene incompatibility.

¬{AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the phone reconvenes incompatibility. ; $context$ = sent1: the phone regrets hamster and is a kind of a trochanter. sent2: something that does not soften drone does reconvene incompatibility and is a Bessera. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Ziegler then that it vouches and it does soften drone does not hold. sent4: something is a Bessera that does soften drone if it does not vouch. sent5: the abalone does vouch and it is a kind of a baseball. sent6: the fact that the gramophone vouches is true. sent7: the phone does not soften drone and does vouch. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that the phone does reconvene incompatibility and it is a kind of a Bessera hold if it does not soften drone.; sent7 -> int2: the phone does not soften drone.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the phone does reconvene incompatibility and it is a kind of a Bessera.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something that does not soften drone does reconvene incompatibility and is a Bessera.

something that does not soften drone does reconvene incompatibility and is a Bessera.

the phone does not soften drone and does vouch.

the abduction does not occur and the undressing does not occur.

sent1: the abduction does not occur. sent2: the abatement does not occur if that the siderealness but not the softening unconscientiousness happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the FM occurs and the glimpsing one-hundred-millionth occurs does not hold. sent4: that the siderealness happens but the softening unconscientiousness does not occur is not right. sent5: that the siderealness occurs and the softening unconscientiousness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the abatement occurs then the fact that the abduction does not occur and the undress does not occur does not hold.

(¬{C} & ¬{A})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the abduction does not occur and the undressing does not occur is false.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the abduction does not occur and the undressing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the abduction does not occur. sent2: the abatement does not occur if that the siderealness but not the softening unconscientiousness happens does not hold. sent3: the fact that the FM occurs and the glimpsing one-hundred-millionth occurs does not hold. sent4: that the siderealness happens but the softening unconscientiousness does not occur is not right. sent5: that the siderealness occurs and the softening unconscientiousness occurs does not hold. sent6: if the abatement occurs then the fact that the abduction does not occur and the undress does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the abatement does not occur if that the siderealness but not the softening unconscientiousness happens does not hold.

the abatement does not occur if that the siderealness but not the softening unconscientiousness happens does not hold.

that the siderealness happens but the softening unconscientiousness does not occur is not right.

the fact that the abator is both cucurbitaceous and not a pall is wrong.

sent1: if something does not soften kibe it is not comfortable. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a beaugregory and softens kibe is wrong then it is not comfortable. sent3: that the blockade-runner is a whalebone but it is not comfortable does not hold if the vernix is cucurbitaceous. sent4: if the abator is not comfortable then the fact that it is cucurbitaceous and it is a pall is not correct. sent5: there is nothing that is a beaugregory and does soften kibe. sent6: if the abator does not soften kibe it is not comfortable.

¬({B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the blockade-runner is a kind of a whalebone but it is not comfortable does not hold.

¬({JD}{di} & ¬{A}{di})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the abator is both cucurbitaceous and not a pall is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not soften kibe it is not comfortable. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a beaugregory and softens kibe is wrong then it is not comfortable. sent3: that the blockade-runner is a whalebone but it is not comfortable does not hold if the vernix is cucurbitaceous. sent4: if the abator is not comfortable then the fact that it is cucurbitaceous and it is a pall is not correct. sent5: there is nothing that is a beaugregory and does soften kibe. sent6: if the abator does not soften kibe it is not comfortable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that is a beaugregory and does soften kibe.

there is nothing that is a beaugregory and does soften kibe.

if the fact that something is a kind of a beaugregory and softens kibe is wrong then it is not comfortable.

the Galilean does not occur.

sent1: the flexion happens. sent2: if that the commotion does not occur hold then the fact that both the inguinalness and the reconvening militant happens is incorrect. sent3: that the cards does not occur is right if the hypertensiveness and the inaudibleness happens. sent4: the megaloblasticness happens. sent5: the tumult does not occur if both the irregularity and the autobiographicalness happens. sent6: if both the posting and the softening tack occurs then the RF does not occur. sent7: the Macedonian occurs. sent8: the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs. sent9: that the swoop occurs hold. sent10: the commotion happens. sent11: the orchiopexy happens. sent12: the death does not occur. sent13: the regretting publication and the softening abscission happens. sent14: that the inguinalness does not occur yields that both the Galileanness and the trivalentness happens. sent15: the nobleness happens. sent16: if the glimpsing gummed does not occur that the commotion does not occur and the tumult does not occur is not incorrect. sent17: the conventionalness happens. sent18: the commotion and the reconvening militant happens. sent19: the thirst and the inguinalness happens if the tumult does not occur. sent20: if the trivalentness occurs and the reconvening militant happens the Galilean does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: {DH} sent2: ¬{E} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent3: ({JE} & {IG}) -> ¬{BH} sent4: {CI} sent5: ({AR} & {JK}) -> ¬{F} sent6: ({T} & {IF}) -> ¬{FG} sent7: {CK} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {IA} sent10: {E} sent11: {GD} sent12: ¬{DN} sent13: ({Q} & {FB}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent15: {JG} sent16: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent17: {GM} sent18: ({E} & {C}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ({BN} & {B}) sent20: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the Galileanness happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Galilean does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the flexion happens. sent2: if that the commotion does not occur hold then the fact that both the inguinalness and the reconvening militant happens is incorrect. sent3: that the cards does not occur is right if the hypertensiveness and the inaudibleness happens. sent4: the megaloblasticness happens. sent5: the tumult does not occur if both the irregularity and the autobiographicalness happens. sent6: if both the posting and the softening tack occurs then the RF does not occur. sent7: the Macedonian occurs. sent8: the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs. sent9: that the swoop occurs hold. sent10: the commotion happens. sent11: the orchiopexy happens. sent12: the death does not occur. sent13: the regretting publication and the softening abscission happens. sent14: that the inguinalness does not occur yields that both the Galileanness and the trivalentness happens. sent15: the nobleness happens. sent16: if the glimpsing gummed does not occur that the commotion does not occur and the tumult does not occur is not incorrect. sent17: the conventionalness happens. sent18: the commotion and the reconvening militant happens. sent19: the thirst and the inguinalness happens if the tumult does not occur. sent20: if the trivalentness occurs and the reconvening militant happens the Galilean does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: that the trivalentness happens is not wrong.; sent18 -> int2: the reconvening militant happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the trivalentness and the reconvening militant happens is not incorrect.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs.

There is trivalentness and inguinalness.

the commotion and the reconvening militant happens.

the Galilean does not occur.

sent1: the flexion happens. sent2: if that the commotion does not occur hold then the fact that both the inguinalness and the reconvening militant happens is incorrect. sent3: that the cards does not occur is right if the hypertensiveness and the inaudibleness happens. sent4: the megaloblasticness happens. sent5: the tumult does not occur if both the irregularity and the autobiographicalness happens. sent6: if both the posting and the softening tack occurs then the RF does not occur. sent7: the Macedonian occurs. sent8: the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs. sent9: that the swoop occurs hold. sent10: the commotion happens. sent11: the orchiopexy happens. sent12: the death does not occur. sent13: the regretting publication and the softening abscission happens. sent14: that the inguinalness does not occur yields that both the Galileanness and the trivalentness happens. sent15: the nobleness happens. sent16: if the glimpsing gummed does not occur that the commotion does not occur and the tumult does not occur is not incorrect. sent17: the conventionalness happens. sent18: the commotion and the reconvening militant happens. sent19: the thirst and the inguinalness happens if the tumult does not occur. sent20: if the trivalentness occurs and the reconvening militant happens the Galilean does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: {DH} sent2: ¬{E} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent3: ({JE} & {IG}) -> ¬{BH} sent4: {CI} sent5: ({AR} & {JK}) -> ¬{F} sent6: ({T} & {IF}) -> ¬{FG} sent7: {CK} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {IA} sent10: {E} sent11: {GD} sent12: ¬{DN} sent13: ({Q} & {FB}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent15: {JG} sent16: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent17: {GM} sent18: ({E} & {C}) sent19: ¬{F} -> ({BN} & {B}) sent20: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the Galileanness happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Galilean does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the flexion happens. sent2: if that the commotion does not occur hold then the fact that both the inguinalness and the reconvening militant happens is incorrect. sent3: that the cards does not occur is right if the hypertensiveness and the inaudibleness happens. sent4: the megaloblasticness happens. sent5: the tumult does not occur if both the irregularity and the autobiographicalness happens. sent6: if both the posting and the softening tack occurs then the RF does not occur. sent7: the Macedonian occurs. sent8: the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs. sent9: that the swoop occurs hold. sent10: the commotion happens. sent11: the orchiopexy happens. sent12: the death does not occur. sent13: the regretting publication and the softening abscission happens. sent14: that the inguinalness does not occur yields that both the Galileanness and the trivalentness happens. sent15: the nobleness happens. sent16: if the glimpsing gummed does not occur that the commotion does not occur and the tumult does not occur is not incorrect. sent17: the conventionalness happens. sent18: the commotion and the reconvening militant happens. sent19: the thirst and the inguinalness happens if the tumult does not occur. sent20: if the trivalentness occurs and the reconvening militant happens the Galilean does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: that the trivalentness happens is not wrong.; sent18 -> int2: the reconvening militant happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the trivalentness and the reconvening militant happens is not incorrect.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the trivalentness and the inguinalness occurs.

The trivalentness and inguinalness occur.

if the trivalentness occurs and the reconvening militant happens the Galilean does not occur.

the torsion is not glandular.

sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the torsion is glandular.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the torsion is not glandular. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: that the sneerer is a Fulgoridae is correct.; sent7 & sent2 -> int2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a kind of a Fulgoridae.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke.

The sneerer is a heatstroke.

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false.

the torsion is not glandular.

sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the torsion is glandular.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the torsion is not glandular. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: that the sneerer is a Fulgoridae is correct.; sent7 & sent2 -> int2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a kind of a Fulgoridae.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke.

The sneerer is a heatstroke and is a kind of Fulgoridae.

the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false.

the torsion is not glandular.

sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the torsion is glandular.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the torsion is not glandular. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a alienor then the sylvite does not glimpse Moselle. sent2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion if there is something such that that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent3: if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong. sent4: the torsion is comprehensible. sent5: if there exists something such that it is glandular then the torsion does not reconvene torsion. sent6: the torsion is a Fulgoridae. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a tentacled and it does not regret sneerer is false. sent8: if the sneerer is glandular then the torsion is glandular. sent9: the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke. sent10: the torsion is not a tentacled. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: that the sneerer is a Fulgoridae is correct.; sent7 & sent2 -> int2: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a kind of a Fulgoridae.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sneerer is a kind of a Fulgoridae and is a heatstroke.

The sneerer is a heatstroke and is related to the Fulgoridae.

if the sneerer does not reconvene torsion and is a Fulgoridae then the fact that the torsion is not glandular is not wrong.

the fact that the deerskin is ripe but it is not inconvertible does not hold.

sent1: if something is not nonrandom the fact that it is a kind of ripe thing that is inconvertible is wrong. sent2: the praline is both not toeless and inconvertible. sent3: the deerskin does glimpse line. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bath and/or it does not glimpse line is wrong the safebreaker is random. sent5: the fact that the deerskin is not a Bath but it is ripe does not hold if the safebreaker is nonrandom. sent6: if the balldress is exempt then the safebreaker is a kind of a Bath. sent7: the fact that the deerskin is both not non-ripe and not convertible is not right if it is not nonrandom. sent8: that the deerskin is ripe and it is inconvertible is not true. sent9: the deerskin is not inconvertible if the fact that the safebreaker is nonrandom and/or it is not inconvertible is false. sent10: the deerskin is a kind of an addendum if it is ripe. sent11: that something is ripe but it is not inconvertible is wrong if it is random. sent12: if the safebreaker is inconvertible it is nonrandom. sent13: if the deerskin is nonrandom then it is a Bath.

¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent2: (¬{GH}{jb} & {C}{jb}) sent3: {E}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent5: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent6: {F}{c} -> {B}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent8: ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent9: ¬({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: {D}{a} -> {BE}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the shimmy is not ripe.

¬{D}{cr}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the deerskin is ripe but it is not inconvertible does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not nonrandom the fact that it is a kind of ripe thing that is inconvertible is wrong. sent2: the praline is both not toeless and inconvertible. sent3: the deerskin does glimpse line. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Bath and/or it does not glimpse line is wrong the safebreaker is random. sent5: the fact that the deerskin is not a Bath but it is ripe does not hold if the safebreaker is nonrandom. sent6: if the balldress is exempt then the safebreaker is a kind of a Bath. sent7: the fact that the deerskin is both not non-ripe and not convertible is not right if it is not nonrandom. sent8: that the deerskin is ripe and it is inconvertible is not true. sent9: the deerskin is not inconvertible if the fact that the safebreaker is nonrandom and/or it is not inconvertible is false. sent10: the deerskin is a kind of an addendum if it is ripe. sent11: that something is ripe but it is not inconvertible is wrong if it is random. sent12: if the safebreaker is inconvertible it is nonrandom. sent13: if the deerskin is nonrandom then it is a Bath. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the deerskin is nonrandom then it is a Bath.

if the deerskin is nonrandom then it is a Bath.

that something is ripe but it is not inconvertible is wrong if it is random.

that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs is not right.

sent1: the effacing does not occur and the avoidance happens. sent2: the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens. sent3: that the softening Nuda does not occur is caused by that the crawling does not occur. sent4: the fact that the trudge does not occur hold. sent5: that not the reconvening Benet but the barometricness occurs triggers the questioning. sent6: if the trudge does not occur the argillaceousness does not occur. sent7: the softening spherocyte does not occur. sent8: the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens if the trudge occurs. sent9: if the fact that the suspending does not occur and the acetylenicness happens is not incorrect the posturalness happens.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: (¬{AF} & {FB}) sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{FF} -> ¬{BQ} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: (¬{BE} & {JG}) -> {GO} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{IS} sent8: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: (¬{HM} & {GG}) -> {GM}

PROVED

PROVED

the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the effacing does not occur and the avoidance happens. sent2: the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens. sent3: that the softening Nuda does not occur is caused by that the crawling does not occur. sent4: the fact that the trudge does not occur hold. sent5: that not the reconvening Benet but the barometricness occurs triggers the questioning. sent6: if the trudge does not occur the argillaceousness does not occur. sent7: the softening spherocyte does not occur. sent8: the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens if the trudge occurs. sent9: if the fact that the suspending does not occur and the acetylenicness happens is not incorrect the posturalness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the argillaceousness happens.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the argillaceousness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens.

The vulvarness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization doesn't happen.

if the trudge does not occur the argillaceousness does not occur.

that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs is not right.

sent1: the effacing does not occur and the avoidance happens. sent2: the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens. sent3: that the softening Nuda does not occur is caused by that the crawling does not occur. sent4: the fact that the trudge does not occur hold. sent5: that not the reconvening Benet but the barometricness occurs triggers the questioning. sent6: if the trudge does not occur the argillaceousness does not occur. sent7: the softening spherocyte does not occur. sent8: the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens if the trudge occurs. sent9: if the fact that the suspending does not occur and the acetylenicness happens is not incorrect the posturalness happens.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: (¬{AF} & {FB}) sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{FF} -> ¬{BQ} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: (¬{BE} & {JG}) -> {GO} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{IS} sent8: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: (¬{HM} & {GG}) -> {GM}

PROVED

PROVED

the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the effacing does not occur and the avoidance happens. sent2: the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens. sent3: that the softening Nuda does not occur is caused by that the crawling does not occur. sent4: the fact that the trudge does not occur hold. sent5: that not the reconvening Benet but the barometricness occurs triggers the questioning. sent6: if the trudge does not occur the argillaceousness does not occur. sent7: the softening spherocyte does not occur. sent8: the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens if the trudge occurs. sent9: if the fact that the suspending does not occur and the acetylenicness happens is not incorrect the posturalness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the reconvening overcapitalization but the vulvarness occurs.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the argillaceousness happens.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the argillaceousness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the argillaceousness happens if the reconvening overcapitalization does not occur but the vulvarness happens.

If the reconvening overcapitalization doesn't happen, the argillaceousness happens.

the fact that the trudge does not occur hold.

the martingale does glimpse fanion.

sent1: if the edmontosaurus does not debit and/or it does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent2: the edmontosaurus is not a debit or it is a settle or both. sent3: if the knocker is a Teller the accompanist is a cattle. sent4: the edmontosaurus either is not a debit or is not a settle or both. sent5: if the knocker reconvenes Marshall the accompanist is a cattle. sent6: if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent7: if there is something such that it is a cattle the fellow is a kind of a pax and regrets A-team. sent8: if there is something such that it is a pax then the earthworm does reconvene coreid but it is not a kind of a Klinefelter. sent9: if something glimpses fanion the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado. sent10: that the scratcher regrets A-team and is not a kind of a cattle is false if there is something such that it does not reconvene Marshall. sent11: if something does not regret A-team then it does reconvene coreid and it is a pax. sent12: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it does glimpse fanion if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent13: the scratcher is not a kind of a debit if the martingale does not glimpse fanion and/or it does not glimpse bastinado. sent14: the knocker is not an exaction. sent15: if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent16: the knocker is a Teller and/or it reconvenes Marshall if it is not an exaction. sent17: the edmontosaurus does not soften martingale and it is not a Klinefelter if something does reconvene coreid. sent18: if something does not soften martingale and is not a kind of a Klinefelter then it glimpses fanion. sent19: if that the edmontosaurus does glimpse bastinado and/or does not glimpse fanion is false then the martingale does not glimpse fanion. sent20: either the edmontosaurus does debit or it does not settle or both. sent21: if that something regrets A-team and is not a cattle is wrong it does not regrets A-team. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not reconvene Marshall hold. sent23: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado.

{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado.

¬{A}{gu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the martingale does glimpse fanion. ; $context$ = sent1: if the edmontosaurus does not debit and/or it does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent2: the edmontosaurus is not a debit or it is a settle or both. sent3: if the knocker is a Teller the accompanist is a cattle. sent4: the edmontosaurus either is not a debit or is not a settle or both. sent5: if the knocker reconvenes Marshall the accompanist is a cattle. sent6: if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent7: if there is something such that it is a cattle the fellow is a kind of a pax and regrets A-team. sent8: if there is something such that it is a pax then the earthworm does reconvene coreid but it is not a kind of a Klinefelter. sent9: if something glimpses fanion the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado. sent10: that the scratcher regrets A-team and is not a kind of a cattle is false if there is something such that it does not reconvene Marshall. sent11: if something does not regret A-team then it does reconvene coreid and it is a pax. sent12: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it does glimpse fanion if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent13: the scratcher is not a kind of a debit if the martingale does not glimpse fanion and/or it does not glimpse bastinado. sent14: the knocker is not an exaction. sent15: if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent16: the knocker is a Teller and/or it reconvenes Marshall if it is not an exaction. sent17: the edmontosaurus does not soften martingale and it is not a Klinefelter if something does reconvene coreid. sent18: if something does not soften martingale and is not a kind of a Klinefelter then it glimpses fanion. sent19: if that the edmontosaurus does glimpse bastinado and/or does not glimpse fanion is false then the martingale does not glimpse fanion. sent20: either the edmontosaurus does debit or it does not settle or both. sent21: if that something regrets A-team and is not a cattle is wrong it does not regrets A-team. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not reconvene Marshall hold. sent23: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the scratcher does not glimpse fanion.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it glimpses fanion.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion.

The scratcher does not glimpse fanion if the edmontosaurus is not a debit.

the edmontosaurus either is not a debit or is not a settle or both.

the martingale does glimpse fanion.

sent1: if the edmontosaurus does not debit and/or it does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent2: the edmontosaurus is not a debit or it is a settle or both. sent3: if the knocker is a Teller the accompanist is a cattle. sent4: the edmontosaurus either is not a debit or is not a settle or both. sent5: if the knocker reconvenes Marshall the accompanist is a cattle. sent6: if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent7: if there is something such that it is a cattle the fellow is a kind of a pax and regrets A-team. sent8: if there is something such that it is a pax then the earthworm does reconvene coreid but it is not a kind of a Klinefelter. sent9: if something glimpses fanion the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado. sent10: that the scratcher regrets A-team and is not a kind of a cattle is false if there is something such that it does not reconvene Marshall. sent11: if something does not regret A-team then it does reconvene coreid and it is a pax. sent12: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it does glimpse fanion if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent13: the scratcher is not a kind of a debit if the martingale does not glimpse fanion and/or it does not glimpse bastinado. sent14: the knocker is not an exaction. sent15: if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent16: the knocker is a Teller and/or it reconvenes Marshall if it is not an exaction. sent17: the edmontosaurus does not soften martingale and it is not a Klinefelter if something does reconvene coreid. sent18: if something does not soften martingale and is not a kind of a Klinefelter then it glimpses fanion. sent19: if that the edmontosaurus does glimpse bastinado and/or does not glimpse fanion is false then the martingale does not glimpse fanion. sent20: either the edmontosaurus does debit or it does not settle or both. sent21: if that something regrets A-team and is not a cattle is wrong it does not regrets A-team. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not reconvene Marshall hold. sent23: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado.

{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado.

¬{A}{gu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the martingale does glimpse fanion. ; $context$ = sent1: if the edmontosaurus does not debit and/or it does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent2: the edmontosaurus is not a debit or it is a settle or both. sent3: if the knocker is a Teller the accompanist is a cattle. sent4: the edmontosaurus either is not a debit or is not a settle or both. sent5: if the knocker reconvenes Marshall the accompanist is a cattle. sent6: if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent7: if there is something such that it is a cattle the fellow is a kind of a pax and regrets A-team. sent8: if there is something such that it is a pax then the earthworm does reconvene coreid but it is not a kind of a Klinefelter. sent9: if something glimpses fanion the sensitizer does not glimpse bastinado. sent10: that the scratcher regrets A-team and is not a kind of a cattle is false if there is something such that it does not reconvene Marshall. sent11: if something does not regret A-team then it does reconvene coreid and it is a pax. sent12: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it does glimpse fanion if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion. sent13: the scratcher is not a kind of a debit if the martingale does not glimpse fanion and/or it does not glimpse bastinado. sent14: the knocker is not an exaction. sent15: if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion then the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. sent16: the knocker is a Teller and/or it reconvenes Marshall if it is not an exaction. sent17: the edmontosaurus does not soften martingale and it is not a Klinefelter if something does reconvene coreid. sent18: if something does not soften martingale and is not a kind of a Klinefelter then it glimpses fanion. sent19: if that the edmontosaurus does glimpse bastinado and/or does not glimpse fanion is false then the martingale does not glimpse fanion. sent20: either the edmontosaurus does debit or it does not settle or both. sent21: if that something regrets A-team and is not a cattle is wrong it does not regrets A-team. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not reconvene Marshall hold. sent23: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the scratcher does not glimpse fanion.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it glimpses fanion.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the edmontosaurus is not a debit and/or it is not a settle the scratcher does not glimpse fanion.

The scratcher does not glimpse fanion if the edmontosaurus is not a debit or a settle.

the martingale does not glimpse bastinado but it does glimpse fanion if the scratcher does not glimpse fanion.

the Sabine is not gothic.

sent1: the fact that the cream is gothic is correct. sent2: something is serologic if it is a kind of a Dumuzi. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not familial and it is a kind of a charge the Sabine is a kind of a bottomed. sent4: if something does heighten that it is gothic but not bottomed is not right. sent5: something is not familial and it is not a charge. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a canicule and it does not soften abyss. sent7: if something that is not familial does not charge then the Sabine bottoms. sent8: that the Sabine is a Aulostomus is not wrong. sent9: if something is poetic it does heighten. sent10: if something does bottom it is gothic. sent11: something is a kind of familial thing that is not a charge. sent12: there is something such that it is not a charge.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: {B}{ab} sent2: (x): {IB}x -> {DJ}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{CA}x & ¬{DK}x) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent8: {HD}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{AB}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Sabine is not gothic hold.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Sabine is not gothic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cream is gothic is correct. sent2: something is serologic if it is a kind of a Dumuzi. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not familial and it is a kind of a charge the Sabine is a kind of a bottomed. sent4: if something does heighten that it is gothic but not bottomed is not right. sent5: something is not familial and it is not a charge. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a canicule and it does not soften abyss. sent7: if something that is not familial does not charge then the Sabine bottoms. sent8: that the Sabine is a Aulostomus is not wrong. sent9: if something is poetic it does heighten. sent10: if something does bottom it is gothic. sent11: something is a kind of familial thing that is not a charge. sent12: there is something such that it is not a charge. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the Sabine does bottom.; sent10 -> int2: if the Sabine does bottom it is gothic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not familial and it is not a charge.

It is not a charge and something is not a family.

if something that is not familial does not charge then the Sabine bottoms.

the Sabine is not gothic.

sent1: the fact that the cream is gothic is correct. sent2: something is serologic if it is a kind of a Dumuzi. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not familial and it is a kind of a charge the Sabine is a kind of a bottomed. sent4: if something does heighten that it is gothic but not bottomed is not right. sent5: something is not familial and it is not a charge. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a canicule and it does not soften abyss. sent7: if something that is not familial does not charge then the Sabine bottoms. sent8: that the Sabine is a Aulostomus is not wrong. sent9: if something is poetic it does heighten. sent10: if something does bottom it is gothic. sent11: something is a kind of familial thing that is not a charge. sent12: there is something such that it is not a charge.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: {B}{ab} sent2: (x): {IB}x -> {DJ}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{CA}x & ¬{DK}x) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent8: {HD}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent10: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{AB}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Sabine is not gothic hold.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Sabine is not gothic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cream is gothic is correct. sent2: something is serologic if it is a kind of a Dumuzi. sent3: if there exists something such that it is not familial and it is a kind of a charge the Sabine is a kind of a bottomed. sent4: if something does heighten that it is gothic but not bottomed is not right. sent5: something is not familial and it is not a charge. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a canicule and it does not soften abyss. sent7: if something that is not familial does not charge then the Sabine bottoms. sent8: that the Sabine is a Aulostomus is not wrong. sent9: if something is poetic it does heighten. sent10: if something does bottom it is gothic. sent11: something is a kind of familial thing that is not a charge. sent12: there is something such that it is not a charge. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the Sabine does bottom.; sent10 -> int2: if the Sabine does bottom it is gothic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not familial and it is not a charge.

Something is not a charge.

if something does bottom it is gothic.

there exists something such that if it does not expiate then it is not uneasy.

sent1: something is uneasy if it does not expiate. sent2: the avaram is not uneasy if that it does expiate is true. sent3: something is not uneasy if the fact that it does expiate hold.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not expiate then it is not uneasy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is uneasy if it does not expiate. sent2: the avaram is not uneasy if that it does expiate is true. sent3: something is not uneasy if the fact that it does expiate hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not uneasy if the fact that it does expiate hold.

something is not uneasy if the fact that it does expiate hold.

the avaram is not uneasy if that it does expiate is true.

the wit is unintrusive.

sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major.

{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the palace is not a operationalism.

¬{E}{j}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wit is unintrusive. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the ropemaker does not soften swami.; sent8 -> int2: the ropemaker is not non-major.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ropemaker does not soften swami and is a kind of a major.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew.

The ropemaker doesn't make swami softer if the swami doesn't see mew.

the swami does not glimpse mew.

the wit is unintrusive.

sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major.

{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the palace is not a operationalism.

¬{E}{j}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wit is unintrusive. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the ropemaker does not soften swami.; sent8 -> int2: the ropemaker is not non-major.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ropemaker does not soften swami and is a kind of a major.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew.

The ropemaker doesn't change swami if the swami doesn't see mew.

the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism.

the wit is unintrusive.

sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major.

{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the palace is not a operationalism.

¬{E}{j}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wit is unintrusive. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not soften swami and it does not glimpse mew is wrong if it is not a major. sent2: the ropemaker is a hotspot and it is apneic. sent3: the ropemaker is a operationalism. sent4: the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew. sent5: the swami does not glimpse mew. sent6: the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not unintrusive and is a major is correct is not true if it is a hotspot. sent8: the ropemaker is a major and it is a operationalism. sent9: The mew does not glimpse swami. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both intrusive and not non-major is incorrect then the swami is not a kind of a non-major. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the ropemaker does not soften swami.; sent8 -> int2: the ropemaker is not non-major.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ropemaker does not soften swami and is a kind of a major.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ropemaker does not soften swami if the swami does not glimpse mew.

If the swami does not see mew, the ropemaker does not make swami softer.

the wit is unintrusive if the fact that the ropemaker does not soften swami but it majors is not incorrect.

the Augustinian is not hydrophobic.

sent1: something is hydrophobic and does uniform if the fact that it is not poetics is not wrong. sent2: the fact that everything is not a Varanidae hold. sent3: the Earth is a HUD that is poetics. sent4: the fact that something does reconvene overspill and does not soften archdeacon is not correct if it is not non-poetics. sent5: if the praline is not a kind of a padre then it is a uniform. sent6: the praline is not non-uniform. sent7: if there is something such that it does not reconvene overspill then the pianist is poetics. sent8: the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics if there is something such that the fact that it does not reconvene overspill is correct. sent9: the praline is not a padre if the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics. sent10: that something is non-uniform and a compere is not correct if it is not a kind of a Varanidae. sent11: there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill. sent12: the Augustinian is not a uniform. sent13: the pianist is poetics if the praline is a padre. sent14: the Augustinian is hydrophobic if the pianist is hydrophobic. sent15: if the praline uniforms and it is a compere that the Augustinian is not hydrophobic is right. sent16: there exists something such that that it does reconvene overspill is correct. sent17: if something is not a padre then it is uniform. sent18: the pianist is poetics. sent19: if the praline is hydrophobic and it is a padre the Augustinian is not a compere. sent20: the landfall is not poetics.

¬{G}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Augustinian is hydrophobic.

{G}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Augustinian is not hydrophobic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is hydrophobic and does uniform if the fact that it is not poetics is not wrong. sent2: the fact that everything is not a Varanidae hold. sent3: the Earth is a HUD that is poetics. sent4: the fact that something does reconvene overspill and does not soften archdeacon is not correct if it is not non-poetics. sent5: if the praline is not a kind of a padre then it is a uniform. sent6: the praline is not non-uniform. sent7: if there is something such that it does not reconvene overspill then the pianist is poetics. sent8: the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics if there is something such that the fact that it does not reconvene overspill is correct. sent9: the praline is not a padre if the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics. sent10: that something is non-uniform and a compere is not correct if it is not a kind of a Varanidae. sent11: there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill. sent12: the Augustinian is not a uniform. sent13: the pianist is poetics if the praline is a padre. sent14: the Augustinian is hydrophobic if the pianist is hydrophobic. sent15: if the praline uniforms and it is a compere that the Augustinian is not hydrophobic is right. sent16: there exists something such that that it does reconvene overspill is correct. sent17: if something is not a padre then it is uniform. sent18: the pianist is poetics. sent19: if the praline is hydrophobic and it is a padre the Augustinian is not a compere. sent20: the landfall is not poetics. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill.

There is something that does not return overspills.

the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics if there is something such that the fact that it does not reconvene overspill is correct.

the Augustinian is not hydrophobic.

sent1: something is hydrophobic and does uniform if the fact that it is not poetics is not wrong. sent2: the fact that everything is not a Varanidae hold. sent3: the Earth is a HUD that is poetics. sent4: the fact that something does reconvene overspill and does not soften archdeacon is not correct if it is not non-poetics. sent5: if the praline is not a kind of a padre then it is a uniform. sent6: the praline is not non-uniform. sent7: if there is something such that it does not reconvene overspill then the pianist is poetics. sent8: the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics if there is something such that the fact that it does not reconvene overspill is correct. sent9: the praline is not a padre if the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics. sent10: that something is non-uniform and a compere is not correct if it is not a kind of a Varanidae. sent11: there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill. sent12: the Augustinian is not a uniform. sent13: the pianist is poetics if the praline is a padre. sent14: the Augustinian is hydrophobic if the pianist is hydrophobic. sent15: if the praline uniforms and it is a compere that the Augustinian is not hydrophobic is right. sent16: there exists something such that that it does reconvene overspill is correct. sent17: if something is not a padre then it is uniform. sent18: the pianist is poetics. sent19: if the praline is hydrophobic and it is a padre the Augustinian is not a compere. sent20: the landfall is not poetics.

¬{G}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Augustinian is hydrophobic.

{G}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Augustinian is not hydrophobic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is hydrophobic and does uniform if the fact that it is not poetics is not wrong. sent2: the fact that everything is not a Varanidae hold. sent3: the Earth is a HUD that is poetics. sent4: the fact that something does reconvene overspill and does not soften archdeacon is not correct if it is not non-poetics. sent5: if the praline is not a kind of a padre then it is a uniform. sent6: the praline is not non-uniform. sent7: if there is something such that it does not reconvene overspill then the pianist is poetics. sent8: the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics if there is something such that the fact that it does not reconvene overspill is correct. sent9: the praline is not a padre if the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics. sent10: that something is non-uniform and a compere is not correct if it is not a kind of a Varanidae. sent11: there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill. sent12: the Augustinian is not a uniform. sent13: the pianist is poetics if the praline is a padre. sent14: the Augustinian is hydrophobic if the pianist is hydrophobic. sent15: if the praline uniforms and it is a compere that the Augustinian is not hydrophobic is right. sent16: there exists something such that that it does reconvene overspill is correct. sent17: if something is not a padre then it is uniform. sent18: the pianist is poetics. sent19: if the praline is hydrophobic and it is a padre the Augustinian is not a compere. sent20: the landfall is not poetics. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does not reconvene overspill.

There is something that does not reconvene overspill.

the praline is not a padre if the pianist does not soften archdeacon but it is poetics.

the fact that there exists something such that it is a Ixia is not right.

sent1: if the fact that something is not an atom and/or it does soften Bulnesia does not hold it is a Ixia. sent2: there exists nothing that is not a kind of a norethindrone or is a vegetation or both. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not an atom or softens Bulnesia or both.

¬((Ex): {A}x)

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{HM}x v {FC}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is a Ixia is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not an atom and/or it does soften Bulnesia does not hold it is a Ixia. sent2: there exists nothing that is not a kind of a norethindrone or is a vegetation or both. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not an atom or softens Bulnesia or both. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that either the Fall is not a kind of an atom or it softens Bulnesia or both is incorrect.; sent1 -> int2: the Fall is a Ixia if the fact that it is not an atom and/or it does soften Bulnesia is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Fall is a Ixia is true.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing such that it is not an atom or softens Bulnesia or both.

there is nothing such that it is not an atom or softens Bulnesia or both.

if the fact that something is not an atom and/or it does soften Bulnesia does not hold it is a Ixia.

the reconvening Hevesy does not occur.

sent1: the inelasticness occurs if the softening Styron happens. sent2: the fact that the eventfulness does not occur hold. sent3: if both the ateleioticness and the regretting Charleroi occurs then the softening policyholder does not occur. sent4: both the committing and the partitiveness happens. sent5: the reconvening polytheism occurs and the softening bunchgrass happens. sent6: if both the glimpsing guvnor and the vitreousness occurs that the go does not occur is correct. sent7: if the inelasticness occurs and the miniaturization happens the reconvening Hevesy does not occur. sent8: that the unbosoming happens is prevented by that the transmission and the mouthing happens. sent9: both the non-prolusoriness and the non-eventfulness occurs if the fact that the investing does not occur is right. sent10: the grouping does not occur. sent11: the professing occurs if the tramming happens. sent12: if the fact that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoriness or both happens hold is not true the miniaturization happens. sent13: the glimpsing presidium occurs. sent14: the auditoriness does not occur. sent15: the fact that the reconvening tamale occurs is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the chime happens hold if the fact that the vulvarness happens and/or the canicularness does not occur is wrong. sent17: that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoryness or both occurs is not wrong is not right.

¬{D}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ¬{E} sent3: ({BU} & {IG}) -> ¬{FO} sent4: ({GJ} & {GK}) sent5: ({BM} & {DC}) sent6: ({IS} & {AG}) -> ¬{GM} sent7: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: ({AU} & {HL}) -> ¬{AP} sent9: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent10: ¬{AB} sent11: {GT} -> {HG} sent12: ¬({E} v ¬{F}) -> {C} sent13: {DK} sent14: ¬{GU} sent15: {AS} sent16: ¬({JF} v ¬{GG}) -> {DP} sent17: ¬({E} v ¬{F})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the reconvening Hevesy occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reconvening Hevesy does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the inelasticness occurs if the softening Styron happens. sent2: the fact that the eventfulness does not occur hold. sent3: if both the ateleioticness and the regretting Charleroi occurs then the softening policyholder does not occur. sent4: both the committing and the partitiveness happens. sent5: the reconvening polytheism occurs and the softening bunchgrass happens. sent6: if both the glimpsing guvnor and the vitreousness occurs that the go does not occur is correct. sent7: if the inelasticness occurs and the miniaturization happens the reconvening Hevesy does not occur. sent8: that the unbosoming happens is prevented by that the transmission and the mouthing happens. sent9: both the non-prolusoriness and the non-eventfulness occurs if the fact that the investing does not occur is right. sent10: the grouping does not occur. sent11: the professing occurs if the tramming happens. sent12: if the fact that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoriness or both happens hold is not true the miniaturization happens. sent13: the glimpsing presidium occurs. sent14: the auditoriness does not occur. sent15: the fact that the reconvening tamale occurs is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the chime happens hold if the fact that the vulvarness happens and/or the canicularness does not occur is wrong. sent17: that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoryness or both occurs is not wrong is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoriness or both happens hold is not true the miniaturization happens.

if the fact that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoriness or both happens hold is not true the miniaturization happens.

that the fact that either the eventfulness or the non-prolusoryness or both occurs is not wrong is not right.

the exudation does not glimpse esprit.

sent1: if the fact that the fact that the Methodist does not glimpse Viverridae and does not glimpse Adriatic is not true is correct that it clanks is right. sent2: the exudation glimpses esprit if there exists something such that it is a kind of a beagling and is a kind of a studio. sent3: there is something such that it is a beagling and glimpses esprit. sent4: something is a beagling. sent5: the gee-gee is a kind of a beagling. sent6: that the gee-gee is a beagling and a studio is right. sent7: the fact that the exudation does not glimpse esprit and/or it is a kind of a beagling if the helvella is a studio is not false. sent8: something is a studio. sent9: that the Methodist does not glimpse Viverridae and does not glimpse Adriatic is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unerect and does not partner does not hold then the ringer is not a jabiru. sent11: if the Methodist clanks then that the warner is not erect but it is not a kind of a partner is incorrect. sent12: the usance is both prognathous and not a send-off if something is not a jabiru.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the exudation does not glimpse esprit.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exudation does not glimpse esprit. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the fact that the Methodist does not glimpse Viverridae and does not glimpse Adriatic is not true is correct that it clanks is right. sent2: the exudation glimpses esprit if there exists something such that it is a kind of a beagling and is a kind of a studio. sent3: there is something such that it is a beagling and glimpses esprit. sent4: something is a beagling. sent5: the gee-gee is a kind of a beagling. sent6: that the gee-gee is a beagling and a studio is right. sent7: the fact that the exudation does not glimpse esprit and/or it is a kind of a beagling if the helvella is a studio is not false. sent8: something is a studio. sent9: that the Methodist does not glimpse Viverridae and does not glimpse Adriatic is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it is unerect and does not partner does not hold then the ringer is not a jabiru. sent11: if the Methodist clanks then that the warner is not erect but it is not a kind of a partner is incorrect. sent12: the usance is both prognathous and not a send-off if something is not a jabiru. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: there is something such that it is a beagling and is a studio.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the gee-gee is a beagling and a studio is right.

that the gee-gee is a beagling and a studio is right.

the exudation glimpses esprit if there exists something such that it is a kind of a beagling and is a kind of a studio.

the LDL is residential.

sent1: if something is an import then it does not glimpse Columbus. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a corkage but it is not a kind of a Cocytus is not right it is not residential. sent3: the edition does not glimpse edition. sent4: if the LDL meditates the fact that it is a pectoral that does not glimpse edition hold. sent5: if something is a pectoral but it does not glimpse edition then it is residential. sent6: the fact that the edition salvages and it is a surbase is not true if the pimp is not epidemic. sent7: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and a Cocytus does not hold if the edition does not glimpse edition. sent8: if the LDL is a kind of a Cocytus then it is not residential. sent9: that the LDL is a corkage and it is a Cocytus does not hold. sent10: The edition does not glimpse edition. sent11: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition.

{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the LDL is residential.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the LDL is residential. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is an import then it does not glimpse Columbus. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a corkage but it is not a kind of a Cocytus is not right it is not residential. sent3: the edition does not glimpse edition. sent4: if the LDL meditates the fact that it is a pectoral that does not glimpse edition hold. sent5: if something is a pectoral but it does not glimpse edition then it is residential. sent6: the fact that the edition salvages and it is a surbase is not true if the pimp is not epidemic. sent7: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and a Cocytus does not hold if the edition does not glimpse edition. sent8: if the LDL is a kind of a Cocytus then it is not residential. sent9: that the LDL is a corkage and it is a Cocytus does not hold. sent10: The edition does not glimpse edition. sent11: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> int1: that the LDL is a corkage but it is not a Cocytus is false.; sent2 -> int2: the LDL is not residential if the fact that it is a corkage but not a Cocytus does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition.

If the edition does not glimpse edition, the fact that the LDL is a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong.

the edition does not glimpse edition.

the LDL is residential.

sent1: if something is an import then it does not glimpse Columbus. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a corkage but it is not a kind of a Cocytus is not right it is not residential. sent3: the edition does not glimpse edition. sent4: if the LDL meditates the fact that it is a pectoral that does not glimpse edition hold. sent5: if something is a pectoral but it does not glimpse edition then it is residential. sent6: the fact that the edition salvages and it is a surbase is not true if the pimp is not epidemic. sent7: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and a Cocytus does not hold if the edition does not glimpse edition. sent8: if the LDL is a kind of a Cocytus then it is not residential. sent9: that the LDL is a corkage and it is a Cocytus does not hold. sent10: The edition does not glimpse edition. sent11: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition.

{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the LDL is residential.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the LDL is residential. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is an import then it does not glimpse Columbus. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a corkage but it is not a kind of a Cocytus is not right it is not residential. sent3: the edition does not glimpse edition. sent4: if the LDL meditates the fact that it is a pectoral that does not glimpse edition hold. sent5: if something is a pectoral but it does not glimpse edition then it is residential. sent6: the fact that the edition salvages and it is a surbase is not true if the pimp is not epidemic. sent7: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and a Cocytus does not hold if the edition does not glimpse edition. sent8: if the LDL is a kind of a Cocytus then it is not residential. sent9: that the LDL is a corkage and it is a Cocytus does not hold. sent10: The edition does not glimpse edition. sent11: the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent3 -> int1: that the LDL is a corkage but it is not a Cocytus is false.; sent2 -> int2: the LDL is not residential if the fact that it is a corkage but not a Cocytus does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the LDL is both a corkage and not a Cocytus is wrong if the edition does not glimpse edition.

If the edition does not glimpse edition, the fact that the LDL is a corkage and not a Cocytus is incorrect.

if the fact that something is a kind of a corkage but it is not a kind of a Cocytus is not right it is not residential.

the calcination does undercut.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does soften Rockford and is a postdiluvian is false. sent2: that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological. sent3: the cube is not unrepeatable. sent4: the calcination is not a Freemasonry if that it is a Freemasonry that overstrains is not correct. sent5: if something does evade that it does undercut is not false. sent6: something is not an incivility if that it does not pitch and it is not away is not correct. sent7: the fact that the coadjutor is a Antiguan hold. sent8: the cube is not pteridological. sent9: if something evades and is not pteridological then it is not an undercut. sent10: the fact that something does not pitch and it is not away is wrong if it is not a Freemasonry. sent11: the calcination does evade and is not pteridological if it is not a kind of an incivility. sent12: there is something such that it is a Antiguan and does glimpse pudding-face.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the calcination is not an undercut.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calcination does undercut. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does soften Rockford and is a postdiluvian is false. sent2: that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological. sent3: the cube is not unrepeatable. sent4: the calcination is not a Freemasonry if that it is a Freemasonry that overstrains is not correct. sent5: if something does evade that it does undercut is not false. sent6: something is not an incivility if that it does not pitch and it is not away is not correct. sent7: the fact that the coadjutor is a Antiguan hold. sent8: the cube is not pteridological. sent9: if something evades and is not pteridological then it is not an undercut. sent10: the fact that something does not pitch and it is not away is wrong if it is not a Freemasonry. sent11: the calcination does evade and is not pteridological if it is not a kind of an incivility. sent12: there is something such that it is a Antiguan and does glimpse pudding-face. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological.

If the cube is not pteridological, it is not true that the lignosae is a kind of Antiguan.

the cube is not pteridological.

the calcination does undercut.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does soften Rockford and is a postdiluvian is false. sent2: that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological. sent3: the cube is not unrepeatable. sent4: the calcination is not a Freemasonry if that it is a Freemasonry that overstrains is not correct. sent5: if something does evade that it does undercut is not false. sent6: something is not an incivility if that it does not pitch and it is not away is not correct. sent7: the fact that the coadjutor is a Antiguan hold. sent8: the cube is not pteridological. sent9: if something evades and is not pteridological then it is not an undercut. sent10: the fact that something does not pitch and it is not away is wrong if it is not a Freemasonry. sent11: the calcination does evade and is not pteridological if it is not a kind of an incivility. sent12: there is something such that it is a Antiguan and does glimpse pudding-face.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the calcination is not an undercut.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calcination does undercut. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does soften Rockford and is a postdiluvian is false. sent2: that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological. sent3: the cube is not unrepeatable. sent4: the calcination is not a Freemasonry if that it is a Freemasonry that overstrains is not correct. sent5: if something does evade that it does undercut is not false. sent6: something is not an incivility if that it does not pitch and it is not away is not correct. sent7: the fact that the coadjutor is a Antiguan hold. sent8: the cube is not pteridological. sent9: if something evades and is not pteridological then it is not an undercut. sent10: the fact that something does not pitch and it is not away is wrong if it is not a Freemasonry. sent11: the calcination does evade and is not pteridological if it is not a kind of an incivility. sent12: there is something such that it is a Antiguan and does glimpse pudding-face. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the lignosae is a kind of a Antiguan and it does glimpse pudding-face is not true if the cube is not pteridological.

If the cube is not pteridological, it's not true that the lignosae is a kind of Antiguan.

if something does evade that it does undercut is not false.

the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur.

sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs.

(¬{D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {JB} -> ¬{BA} sent2: {IM} -> ¬{HI} sent3: {GN} -> ¬{HC} sent4: (¬{GA} & ¬{ID}) sent5: ({GR} & {JI}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: {DD} sent8: ¬{CP} sent9: ({N} & {HL}) -> ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({C} & ¬{G}) sent11: {A} sent12: {F} sent13: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{GO} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({E} & {F}) sent16: {E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{FP} sent18: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

the extravagance does not occur and the reconvening dropline does not occur.

(¬{GO} & ¬{FP})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent18 -> int1: the fact that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation occurs is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the saponifying does not occur.; sent15 -> int3: the Malthusianness happens.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: the inside does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Mesozoic occurs.

There is a geological event called the Mesozoic.

the preparation occurs.

the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur.

sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs.

(¬{D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {JB} -> ¬{BA} sent2: {IM} -> ¬{HI} sent3: {GN} -> ¬{HC} sent4: (¬{GA} & ¬{ID}) sent5: ({GR} & {JI}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: {DD} sent8: ¬{CP} sent9: ({N} & {HL}) -> ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({C} & ¬{G}) sent11: {A} sent12: {F} sent13: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{GO} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({E} & {F}) sent16: {E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{FP} sent18: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

the extravagance does not occur and the reconvening dropline does not occur.

(¬{GO} & ¬{FP})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent18 -> int1: the fact that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation occurs is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the saponifying does not occur.; sent15 -> int3: the Malthusianness happens.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: the inside does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Mesozoic occurs.

The extinction of the dinosaurs occurs.

the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens.

the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur.

sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs.

(¬{D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {JB} -> ¬{BA} sent2: {IM} -> ¬{HI} sent3: {GN} -> ¬{HC} sent4: (¬{GA} & ¬{ID}) sent5: ({GR} & {JI}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: {DD} sent8: ¬{CP} sent9: ({N} & {HL}) -> ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({C} & ¬{G}) sent11: {A} sent12: {F} sent13: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{GO} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({E} & {F}) sent16: {E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{FP} sent18: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

the extravagance does not occur and the reconvening dropline does not occur.

(¬{GO} & ¬{FP})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent18 -> int1: the fact that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation occurs is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the saponifying does not occur.; sent15 -> int3: the Malthusianness happens.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: the inside does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Mesozoic occurs.

There is a time when the Mesozoic occurs.

the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens.

the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur.

sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs.

(¬{D} & ¬{C})

sent1: {JB} -> ¬{BA} sent2: {IM} -> ¬{HI} sent3: {GN} -> ¬{HC} sent4: (¬{GA} & ¬{ID}) sent5: ({GR} & {JI}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: {DD} sent8: ¬{CP} sent9: ({N} & {HL}) -> ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({C} & ¬{G}) sent11: {A} sent12: {F} sent13: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{GO} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({E} & {F}) sent16: {E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{FP} sent18: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

the extravagance does not occur and the reconvening dropline does not occur.

(¬{GO} & ¬{FP})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the insideness does not occur and the saponifying does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the conversing does not occur if the softening lighterage occurs. sent2: that the clucking does not occur is caused by that the dressage happens. sent3: that the autogeneticness occurs prevents the openness. sent4: the amphibiousness does not occur and the glimpsing bearnaise does not occur. sent5: the auscultation occurs and the valvularness occurs. sent6: if the Mesozoicness does not occur then that the inside does not occur and the saponifying does not occur is not true. sent7: the corrigibleness happens. sent8: the fact that the reconvening deadness does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the repatriation does not occur is brought about by that the pricking occurs and the glimpsing patent occurs. sent10: if the bark does not occur then the saponifying but not the discourtesy happens. sent11: the Mesozoic occurs. sent12: the reconvening Moselle occurs. sent13: that the extravagance does not occur hold if the preparation does not occur but the Mesozoic happens. sent14: the saponifying is prevented by that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation happens. sent15: the Malthusianness happens and the reconvening Moselle happens. sent16: the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens. sent17: the reconvening dropline does not occur if that the insideness does not occur and the Malthusian does not occur is not correct. sent18: the preparation occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent18 -> int1: the fact that both the Mesozoicness and the preparation occurs is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the saponifying does not occur.; sent15 -> int3: the Malthusianness happens.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: the inside does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Mesozoic occurs.

The geological event occurs.

the inside does not occur if the Malthusian happens.

the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody.

sent1: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does not glimpse genitor is wrong if the Sombrero does glimpse genitor. sent2: the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone. sent3: the fact that the talapoin does not pelt but it glazes is not true. sent4: the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody if that the spongefly is non-corporate and it does not glimpse genitor is false. sent5: if the fact that something is non-Erasmian thing that closes is not correct it does not closes. sent6: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does glimpse genitor does not hold. sent7: that something does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not true if it is not Gaussian. sent8: something does glimpse genitor but it is not a kind of a busybody if it does not bone. sent9: the fact that the spongefly is not corporate but it glimpses genitor is not right if the Sombrero glimpses genitor. sent10: the fact that the corncob is both non-cryogenic and not non-Gaussian is not correct if the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent11: the Sombrero is not corporate if that the aflatoxin does not glimpse genitor and is not a busybody does not hold. sent12: something is arboreal and non-corporate if the fact that it does not close is right. sent13: the Sombrero is a bone and a busybody. sent14: the spongefly does not soften sinkhole if that the habitation does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not correct. sent15: the aflatoxin is a busybody if the Sombrero glimpses genitor but it is not a busybody. sent16: if the fact that the spongefly does glimpse genitor is not wrong the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. sent17: the aflatoxin does glimpse genitor. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pelt and does glaze is not right then the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent19: something does not bone if it is not nonarboreal and is not corporate. sent20: that the Sombrero is non-Erasmian but it closes does not hold if the spongefly does not soften sinkhole. sent21: if that the Sombrero glimpses genitor is correct the fact that the spongefly is a kind of non-corporate thing that does not glimpses genitor does not hold.

¬{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the aflatoxin is a kind of a busybody.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does not glimpse genitor is wrong if the Sombrero does glimpse genitor. sent2: the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone. sent3: the fact that the talapoin does not pelt but it glazes is not true. sent4: the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody if that the spongefly is non-corporate and it does not glimpse genitor is false. sent5: if the fact that something is non-Erasmian thing that closes is not correct it does not closes. sent6: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does glimpse genitor does not hold. sent7: that something does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not true if it is not Gaussian. sent8: something does glimpse genitor but it is not a kind of a busybody if it does not bone. sent9: the fact that the spongefly is not corporate but it glimpses genitor is not right if the Sombrero glimpses genitor. sent10: the fact that the corncob is both non-cryogenic and not non-Gaussian is not correct if the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent11: the Sombrero is not corporate if that the aflatoxin does not glimpse genitor and is not a busybody does not hold. sent12: something is arboreal and non-corporate if the fact that it does not close is right. sent13: the Sombrero is a bone and a busybody. sent14: the spongefly does not soften sinkhole if that the habitation does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not correct. sent15: the aflatoxin is a busybody if the Sombrero glimpses genitor but it is not a busybody. sent16: if the fact that the spongefly does glimpse genitor is not wrong the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. sent17: the aflatoxin does glimpse genitor. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pelt and does glaze is not right then the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent19: something does not bone if it is not nonarboreal and is not corporate. sent20: that the Sombrero is non-Erasmian but it closes does not hold if the spongefly does not soften sinkhole. sent21: if that the Sombrero glimpses genitor is correct the fact that the spongefly is a kind of non-corporate thing that does not glimpses genitor does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the Sombrero glimpses genitor.; sent21 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the spongefly is non-corporate thing that does not glimpse genitor is false.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone.

The Sombrero is a bone.

if that the Sombrero glimpses genitor is correct the fact that the spongefly is a kind of non-corporate thing that does not glimpses genitor does not hold.

the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody.

sent1: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does not glimpse genitor is wrong if the Sombrero does glimpse genitor. sent2: the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone. sent3: the fact that the talapoin does not pelt but it glazes is not true. sent4: the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody if that the spongefly is non-corporate and it does not glimpse genitor is false. sent5: if the fact that something is non-Erasmian thing that closes is not correct it does not closes. sent6: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does glimpse genitor does not hold. sent7: that something does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not true if it is not Gaussian. sent8: something does glimpse genitor but it is not a kind of a busybody if it does not bone. sent9: the fact that the spongefly is not corporate but it glimpses genitor is not right if the Sombrero glimpses genitor. sent10: the fact that the corncob is both non-cryogenic and not non-Gaussian is not correct if the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent11: the Sombrero is not corporate if that the aflatoxin does not glimpse genitor and is not a busybody does not hold. sent12: something is arboreal and non-corporate if the fact that it does not close is right. sent13: the Sombrero is a bone and a busybody. sent14: the spongefly does not soften sinkhole if that the habitation does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not correct. sent15: the aflatoxin is a busybody if the Sombrero glimpses genitor but it is not a busybody. sent16: if the fact that the spongefly does glimpse genitor is not wrong the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. sent17: the aflatoxin does glimpse genitor. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pelt and does glaze is not right then the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent19: something does not bone if it is not nonarboreal and is not corporate. sent20: that the Sombrero is non-Erasmian but it closes does not hold if the spongefly does not soften sinkhole. sent21: if that the Sombrero glimpses genitor is correct the fact that the spongefly is a kind of non-corporate thing that does not glimpses genitor does not hold.

¬{D}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the aflatoxin is a kind of a busybody.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does not glimpse genitor is wrong if the Sombrero does glimpse genitor. sent2: the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone. sent3: the fact that the talapoin does not pelt but it glazes is not true. sent4: the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody if that the spongefly is non-corporate and it does not glimpse genitor is false. sent5: if the fact that something is non-Erasmian thing that closes is not correct it does not closes. sent6: the fact that the spongefly is not a bone and does glimpse genitor does not hold. sent7: that something does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not true if it is not Gaussian. sent8: something does glimpse genitor but it is not a kind of a busybody if it does not bone. sent9: the fact that the spongefly is not corporate but it glimpses genitor is not right if the Sombrero glimpses genitor. sent10: the fact that the corncob is both non-cryogenic and not non-Gaussian is not correct if the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent11: the Sombrero is not corporate if that the aflatoxin does not glimpse genitor and is not a busybody does not hold. sent12: something is arboreal and non-corporate if the fact that it does not close is right. sent13: the Sombrero is a bone and a busybody. sent14: the spongefly does not soften sinkhole if that the habitation does not soften sinkhole or it is not semantic or both is not correct. sent15: the aflatoxin is a busybody if the Sombrero glimpses genitor but it is not a busybody. sent16: if the fact that the spongefly does glimpse genitor is not wrong the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody. sent17: the aflatoxin does glimpse genitor. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not pelt and does glaze is not right then the avenue is not a quadrupling. sent19: something does not bone if it is not nonarboreal and is not corporate. sent20: that the Sombrero is non-Erasmian but it closes does not hold if the spongefly does not soften sinkhole. sent21: if that the Sombrero glimpses genitor is correct the fact that the spongefly is a kind of non-corporate thing that does not glimpses genitor does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the Sombrero glimpses genitor.; sent21 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the spongefly is non-corporate thing that does not glimpse genitor is false.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Sombrero glimpses genitor and is a bone.

The Sombrero Genitor is a bone.

the aflatoxin is not a kind of a busybody if that the spongefly is non-corporate and it does not glimpse genitor is false.

the fact that that the hydantoin is an incumbency is not wrong if the attraction is a Porte is not right.

sent1: the attraction is innocent if something that does not soften sylvite is not a sonnet. sent2: the sylvite is not an incumbency if the attraction is not genetics. sent3: something does not soften sylvite and it is not a sonnet if the fact that it is a pennyworth is not false. sent4: the subsection is a kind of an incumbency. sent5: everything is a kind of a pennyworth that glimpses hydantoin. sent6: if something is not an incumbency it does reconvene obstructionism and is not a Porte. sent7: if the attraction is a Porte the fact that it does reconvene obstructionism and it is not a Madagascan is wrong. sent8: something is not morbilliform and/or it is not genetics if it is a kind of an innocent. sent9: if that the attraction does reconvene obstructionism but it is non-Madagascan does not hold the hydantoin is an incumbency. sent10: if the attraction is not morbilliform then the sylvite is not an incumbency. sent11: that the attraction does reconvene obstructionism and is a Madagascan is incorrect if it is a Porte.

¬({A}{a} -> {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sylvite does reconvene obstructionism.

{AA}{f}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the hydantoin is an incumbency is not wrong if the attraction is a Porte is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the attraction is innocent if something that does not soften sylvite is not a sonnet. sent2: the sylvite is not an incumbency if the attraction is not genetics. sent3: something does not soften sylvite and it is not a sonnet if the fact that it is a pennyworth is not false. sent4: the subsection is a kind of an incumbency. sent5: everything is a kind of a pennyworth that glimpses hydantoin. sent6: if something is not an incumbency it does reconvene obstructionism and is not a Porte. sent7: if the attraction is a Porte the fact that it does reconvene obstructionism and it is not a Madagascan is wrong. sent8: something is not morbilliform and/or it is not genetics if it is a kind of an innocent. sent9: if that the attraction does reconvene obstructionism but it is non-Madagascan does not hold the hydantoin is an incumbency. sent10: if the attraction is not morbilliform then the sylvite is not an incumbency. sent11: that the attraction does reconvene obstructionism and is a Madagascan is incorrect if it is a Porte. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the attraction is a Porte.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the fact that the attraction reconvenes obstructionism but it is not a Madagascan does not hold is right.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the hydantoin is a kind of an incumbency.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the attraction is a Porte the fact that it does reconvene obstructionism and it is not a Madagascan is wrong.

if the attraction is a Porte the fact that it does reconvene obstructionism and it is not a Madagascan is wrong.

if that the attraction does reconvene obstructionism but it is non-Madagascan does not hold the hydantoin is an incumbency.

the siphon is congeneric and/or is efficient.

sent1: there exists something such that it softens fishpaste. sent2: if that the pronghorn does soften fishpaste and is not a banyan is not right the vitamin does not soften fishpaste. sent3: the fact that the self-starter softens fishpaste is right. sent4: the fact that the neurasthenic is both a flute and not a strain is not right. sent5: if the system is myalgic then the decoction is a banyan. sent6: the self-starter is efficient. sent7: if the fact that the neurasthenic is a flute and does not strain does not hold then it is a Ruritanian. sent8: that the siphon is non-congeneric thing that does not soften fishpaste is incorrect if the vitamin is not a kind of a banyan. sent9: the siphon is congeneric if something softens fishpaste and it is a banyan. sent10: there exists something such that it is a banyan.

({C}{a} v {D}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cephaloridine softens fishpaste.

{A}{ig}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the siphon is congeneric and/or is efficient. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it softens fishpaste. sent2: if that the pronghorn does soften fishpaste and is not a banyan is not right the vitamin does not soften fishpaste. sent3: the fact that the self-starter softens fishpaste is right. sent4: the fact that the neurasthenic is both a flute and not a strain is not right. sent5: if the system is myalgic then the decoction is a banyan. sent6: the self-starter is efficient. sent7: if the fact that the neurasthenic is a flute and does not strain does not hold then it is a Ruritanian. sent8: that the siphon is non-congeneric thing that does not soften fishpaste is incorrect if the vitamin is not a kind of a banyan. sent9: the siphon is congeneric if something softens fishpaste and it is a banyan. sent10: there exists something such that it is a banyan. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a banyan.

there exists something such that it is a banyan.

if the system is myalgic then the decoction is a banyan.

the Wilsonianness happens.

sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Wilsonianness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the eyedrop does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

The blandishment does not occur if the subsonicness does not occur.

that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

the Wilsonianness happens.

sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Wilsonianness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the eyedrop does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

If the subsonicness doesn't occur and the blandishment doesn't occur, the eyedrop doesn't happen.

that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold.

the Wilsonianness happens.

sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Wilsonianness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is incorrect if the fact that the eyedrop does not occur hold. sent2: the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false. sent3: that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. sent4: the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the eyedrop does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the eyedrop does not occur if the fact that the subsonicness does not occur and the blandishment does not occur is not correct.

The eyedrop doesn't happen if the subsonicness doesn't happen and the blandishment doesn't happen.

the Wilsonianness does not occur if the fact that the softening line does not occur and the game does not occur is false.

the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the transamination is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

{C}{do}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent20 -> int1: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant.; sent6 -> int2: the Methodist is ametropic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic.; sent12 -> int4: if the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic then it is a kind of a Potamogalidae.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram.

The Methodist does not see postulant if it comes back to glen.

the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram.

the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the transamination is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

{C}{do}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent20 -> int1: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant.; sent6 -> int2: the Methodist is ametropic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic.; sent12 -> int4: if the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic then it is a kind of a Potamogalidae.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram.

The Methodist does not see postulant if it returns to glen.

the Methodist completes and it is ametropic.

the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the transamination is a kind of a Potamogalidae.

{C}{do}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Methodist is a kind of a Potamogalidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if the 'hood is ametropic the fact that it is a Potamogalidae that does not glimpse postulant is not correct. sent2: the Methodist is not a ecclesiology but it is mutative. sent3: the conchfish softens Marshall or is ametropic or both if there exists something such that it is ametropic. sent4: that something does soften Marshall and is not completed does not hold if it is extensive. sent5: if the conchfish does soften Marshall the fact that the 'hood is ametropic is not incorrect. sent6: the Methodist completes and it is ametropic. sent7: the 'hood is a Frisian. sent8: if the fact that something softens Marshall but it is not completed does not hold then it is completed. sent9: if something that does glimpse postulant is not ametropic then the transamination is a Potamogalidae. sent10: the fact that the Strand is not viral is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is anencephalic and does not reconvene bolero is incorrect. sent11: something is both extensive and viral if the fact that it is not anencephalic hold. sent12: if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold. sent13: the Methodist is a Nike and it is providential. sent14: if something is not extensive the thysanuron is completed and it is ametropic. sent15: if the 'hood is a Frisian that reconvenes bolero the fact that the Methodist is not anencephalic is true. sent16: that there exists nothing such that it is anencephalic and it does not reconvene bolero hold. sent17: if something is not viral it is not extensive. sent18: the 'hood does reconvene bolero. sent19: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram. sent20: the Methodist does reconvene glen and is not a kind of a ram. sent21: the 'hood is not non-ametropic if the conchfish is non-ametropic. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent20 -> int1: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant.; sent6 -> int2: the Methodist is ametropic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic.; sent12 -> int4: if the Methodist does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic then it is a kind of a Potamogalidae.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Methodist does not glimpse postulant if it reconvenes glen and it is not a ram.

The Methodist doesn't see postulant if it comes back to glen.

if something does not glimpse postulant and is ametropic that it is a Potamogalidae hold.

not the regretting petrel but the moo happens.

sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: {FO} sent2: {D} sent3: ¬{FQ} sent4: (¬{G} & {BP}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {B} sent8: ({CO} & {AR})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = not the regretting petrel but the moo happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the method and the Estonianness happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the regretting petrel does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the method occurs.

The method happens.

the Estonian happens.

not the regretting petrel but the moo happens.

sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: {FO} sent2: {D} sent3: ¬{FQ} sent4: (¬{G} & {BP}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {B} sent8: ({CO} & {AR})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = not the regretting petrel but the moo happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the method and the Estonianness happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the regretting petrel does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the method occurs.

The method occurs.

if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur.

not the regretting petrel but the moo happens.

sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: {FO} sent2: {D} sent3: ¬{FQ} sent4: (¬{G} & {BP}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {A} sent7: {B} sent8: ({CO} & {AR})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = not the regretting petrel but the moo happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the capillarity occurs. sent2: the mooing occurs. sent3: the glomerularness does not occur. sent4: not the Oxonian but the softening Grotius occurs. sent5: if the method happens and the Estonianness happens the regretting petrel does not occur. sent6: the method occurs. sent7: the Estonian happens. sent8: the flying occurs and the rhythmicalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the method and the Estonianness happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the regretting petrel does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the method occurs.

There is a method that occurs.

the mooing occurs.

the fact that the minestrone is not puritanical is correct.

sent1: the maleo does soften Garbo if the amberbell is unmanageable. sent2: something is not puritanical if it is a calcination. sent3: if something is not a kind of a sharp it softens Garbo and/or is unmanageable. sent4: if that the maleo softens Garbo is not false that it is not a milkwort and it glimpses seersucker hold. sent5: the focus is not a promulgation if something is not a hafnium but puritanical. sent6: if the amberbell softens Garbo the maleo does softens Garbo. sent7: the minestrone is a kind of a promulgation and it is a hafnium. sent8: that the amberbell is both a Permic and a poltroonery is not right. sent9: the fact that if that something is a Permic that is a poltroonery does not hold it is not a sharp is correct. sent10: if the minestrone is a calcination the fact that it is non-puritanical is true. sent11: the minestrone is not a hafnium but puritanical if the encapsulation is digestive. sent12: something is not a calcination if it is not a promulgation. sent13: if something is a calcination and/or it is a hafnium then it is non-puritanical.

¬{D}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the focus is a calcination is not correct.

¬{C}{bf}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the minestrone is not puritanical is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the maleo does soften Garbo if the amberbell is unmanageable. sent2: something is not puritanical if it is a calcination. sent3: if something is not a kind of a sharp it softens Garbo and/or is unmanageable. sent4: if that the maleo softens Garbo is not false that it is not a milkwort and it glimpses seersucker hold. sent5: the focus is not a promulgation if something is not a hafnium but puritanical. sent6: if the amberbell softens Garbo the maleo does softens Garbo. sent7: the minestrone is a kind of a promulgation and it is a hafnium. sent8: that the amberbell is both a Permic and a poltroonery is not right. sent9: the fact that if that something is a Permic that is a poltroonery does not hold it is not a sharp is correct. sent10: if the minestrone is a calcination the fact that it is non-puritanical is true. sent11: the minestrone is not a hafnium but puritanical if the encapsulation is digestive. sent12: something is not a calcination if it is not a promulgation. sent13: if something is a calcination and/or it is a hafnium then it is non-puritanical. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the minestrone is a hafnium.; int1 -> int2: either the minestrone is a kind of a calcination or it is a hafnium or both.; sent13 -> int3: the minestrone is not puritanical if it is a calcination and/or it is a hafnium.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the minestrone is a kind of a promulgation and it is a hafnium.

the minestrone is a kind of a promulgation and it is a hafnium.

if something is a calcination and/or it is a hafnium then it is non-puritanical.

the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both.

sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi.

(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: ¬({D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ¬({AC}{ep} & {D}{ep}) sent4: ¬{BP}{at} -> (¬{D}{at} v {FR}{at}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{a} v {F}{a}) sent7: (x): {B}x sent8: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {F}x) sent10: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} v {F}{b}) sent11: ¬({F}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬{AJ}{b} -> (¬{EL}{b} v {ER}{b}) sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (Ex): {A}x sent16: {B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the eulogist is not a kind of a croak and/or pulls hold is not true.

¬(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the fact that the axil is unpardonable and glowers purveyance is not true.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the eulogist is not a malodorousness.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct.

It is correct that it conquers Kumasi.

that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi.

the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both.

sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi.

(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: ¬({D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ¬({AC}{ep} & {D}{ep}) sent4: ¬{BP}{at} -> (¬{D}{at} v {FR}{at}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{a} v {F}{a}) sent7: (x): {B}x sent8: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {F}x) sent10: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} v {F}{b}) sent11: ¬({F}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬{AJ}{b} -> (¬{EL}{b} v {ER}{b}) sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (Ex): {A}x sent16: {B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the eulogist is not a kind of a croak and/or pulls hold is not true.

¬(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the fact that the axil is unpardonable and glowers purveyance is not true.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the eulogist is not a malodorousness.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct.

It's correct that it conquers Kumasi.

the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true.

the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both.

sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi.

(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent2: ¬({D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ¬({AC}{ep} & {D}{ep}) sent4: ¬{BP}{at} -> (¬{D}{at} v {FR}{at}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{a} v {F}{a}) sent7: (x): {B}x sent8: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v {F}x) sent10: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} v {F}{b}) sent11: ¬({F}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬{AJ}{b} -> (¬{EL}{b} v {ER}{b}) sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (Ex): {A}x sent16: {B}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the eulogist is not a kind of a croak and/or pulls hold is not true.

¬(¬{E}{b} v {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the eulogist is not a croak or a pull or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the eulogist is not unpardonable is true the axil is not a malodorousness. sent2: the eulogist does not glower purveyance if the fact that the axil is a kind of a malodorousness and is a croak does not hold. sent3: that the attendant is both a frankness and a malodorousness does not hold. sent4: either the ACTH is not a kind of a malodorousness or it is a kind of a boardwalk or both if it is not articular. sent5: the eulogist is not a kind of a malodorousness if the axil is not unpardonable. sent6: if the axil does not glower purveyance then either it is a malodorousness or it pulls or both. sent7: everything is unpardonable. sent8: the eulogist is not a malodorousness if that that the axil is a kind of unpardonable thing that does glower purveyance is correct is not true. sent9: the fact that something does not croak and/or it is a pull is not true if it does not conquer Kumasi. sent10: the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness. sent11: if the fact that the axil is a pull and it is not pardonable does not hold the eulogist does not glower purveyance. sent12: if the axil does not glower purveyance then the eulogist is unpardonable. sent13: the eulogist is not a lambda or noninheritable or both if the fact that it is not extramural is not wrong. sent14: something does glower purveyance. sent15: there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct. sent16: the eulogist is unpardonable if the axil is unpardonable. sent17: that the axil is unpardonable and it does glower purveyance is incorrect if there exists something such that it conquers Kumasi. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the fact that the axil is unpardonable and glowers purveyance is not true.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the eulogist is not a malodorousness.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it conquers Kumasi is correct.

It conquers Kumasi is correct.

the eulogist does not croak and/or pulls if it is not a malodorousness.

that both the tolerating and the conquering chrism occurs does not hold.

sent1: that that the force does not occur leads to that the conquering waver happens and the voltaicness occurs hold. sent2: if the fact that the passage happens and the check-in occurs does not hold the Belgianness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the tolerating and the non-civilianness happens is not correct if the gallinaceousness does not occur. sent4: not the conquering chrism but the glowering moratorium occurs if the Belgianness does not occur. sent5: that the cranking does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is not true. sent6: both the revenging and the non-gallinaceousness occurs if the conquering waver happens. sent7: the civilian happens if the fact that the tolerating but not the civilian happens is not true. sent8: if the non-Bantoidness and the definiteness occurs then the rectification occurs. sent9: if the glowering surfperch does not occur then the tolerating happens. sent10: the gallinaceousness happens. sent11: if the rectification happens then the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs does not hold. sent12: the conquering chrism and the gallinaceousness occurs. sent13: if the gutlessness does not occur the forcing does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs is not true the gutlessness does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the passage and the check-in happens does not hold if the fingerlessness does not occur. sent16: that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong.

¬({B} & {A})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

both the civilian and the glowering moratorium occurs.

({DE} & {IK})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the tolerating and the conquering chrism occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the force does not occur leads to that the conquering waver happens and the voltaicness occurs hold. sent2: if the fact that the passage happens and the check-in occurs does not hold the Belgianness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the tolerating and the non-civilianness happens is not correct if the gallinaceousness does not occur. sent4: not the conquering chrism but the glowering moratorium occurs if the Belgianness does not occur. sent5: that the cranking does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is not true. sent6: both the revenging and the non-gallinaceousness occurs if the conquering waver happens. sent7: the civilian happens if the fact that the tolerating but not the civilian happens is not true. sent8: if the non-Bantoidness and the definiteness occurs then the rectification occurs. sent9: if the glowering surfperch does not occur then the tolerating happens. sent10: the gallinaceousness happens. sent11: if the rectification happens then the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs does not hold. sent12: the conquering chrism and the gallinaceousness occurs. sent13: if the gutlessness does not occur the forcing does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs is not true the gutlessness does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the passage and the check-in happens does not hold if the fingerlessness does not occur. sent16: that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent5 -> int1: the tolerating happens.; sent12 -> int2: the conquering chrism occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong.

The glowering surfperch is incorrect if the crank does not occur.

that the cranking does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is not true.

that both the tolerating and the conquering chrism occurs does not hold.

sent1: that that the force does not occur leads to that the conquering waver happens and the voltaicness occurs hold. sent2: if the fact that the passage happens and the check-in occurs does not hold the Belgianness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the tolerating and the non-civilianness happens is not correct if the gallinaceousness does not occur. sent4: not the conquering chrism but the glowering moratorium occurs if the Belgianness does not occur. sent5: that the cranking does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is not true. sent6: both the revenging and the non-gallinaceousness occurs if the conquering waver happens. sent7: the civilian happens if the fact that the tolerating but not the civilian happens is not true. sent8: if the non-Bantoidness and the definiteness occurs then the rectification occurs. sent9: if the glowering surfperch does not occur then the tolerating happens. sent10: the gallinaceousness happens. sent11: if the rectification happens then the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs does not hold. sent12: the conquering chrism and the gallinaceousness occurs. sent13: if the gutlessness does not occur the forcing does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs is not true the gutlessness does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the passage and the check-in happens does not hold if the fingerlessness does not occur. sent16: that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong.

¬({B} & {A})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

both the civilian and the glowering moratorium occurs.

({DE} & {IK})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the tolerating and the conquering chrism occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the force does not occur leads to that the conquering waver happens and the voltaicness occurs hold. sent2: if the fact that the passage happens and the check-in occurs does not hold the Belgianness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the tolerating and the non-civilianness happens is not correct if the gallinaceousness does not occur. sent4: not the conquering chrism but the glowering moratorium occurs if the Belgianness does not occur. sent5: that the cranking does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is not true. sent6: both the revenging and the non-gallinaceousness occurs if the conquering waver happens. sent7: the civilian happens if the fact that the tolerating but not the civilian happens is not true. sent8: if the non-Bantoidness and the definiteness occurs then the rectification occurs. sent9: if the glowering surfperch does not occur then the tolerating happens. sent10: the gallinaceousness happens. sent11: if the rectification happens then the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs does not hold. sent12: the conquering chrism and the gallinaceousness occurs. sent13: if the gutlessness does not occur the forcing does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the propounding banker does not occur and the propounding foretop occurs is not true the gutlessness does not occur. sent15: the fact that both the passage and the check-in happens does not hold if the fingerlessness does not occur. sent16: that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent5 -> int1: the tolerating happens.; sent12 -> int2: the conquering chrism occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tolerating occurs is not incorrect if that the crank does not occur and the glowering surfperch occurs is wrong.

The glowering surfperch is wrong if the crank does not occur.

the conquering chrism and the gallinaceousness occurs.

the antipasto is not anginal but it does queue Uriah.

sent1: the antipasto is not actinomycetal if the fact that it is a shortener and it is a pascal does not hold. sent2: if the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus then that the divider is actinomycetal and a pascal does not hold. sent3: if the Latinist is a kind of subclinical thing that does not queue Ouranopithecus then the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus. sent4: that the antipasto is a shortener and a pascal is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ADPS is not a kind of a shortener.

¬{C}{go}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the antipasto is not anginal but it does queue Uriah. ; $context$ = sent1: the antipasto is not actinomycetal if the fact that it is a shortener and it is a pascal does not hold. sent2: if the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus then that the divider is actinomycetal and a pascal does not hold. sent3: if the Latinist is a kind of subclinical thing that does not queue Ouranopithecus then the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus. sent4: that the antipasto is a shortener and a pascal is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if that the antipasto is not actinomycetal is right then that it is a kind of non-anginal thing that queues Uriah is false.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the antipasto is not actinomycetal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true.

If that is not actinomycetal, it is not true.

the antipasto is not actinomycetal if the fact that it is a shortener and it is a pascal does not hold.

the antipasto is not anginal but it does queue Uriah.

sent1: the antipasto is not actinomycetal if the fact that it is a shortener and it is a pascal does not hold. sent2: if the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus then that the divider is actinomycetal and a pascal does not hold. sent3: if the Latinist is a kind of subclinical thing that does not queue Ouranopithecus then the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus. sent4: that the antipasto is a shortener and a pascal is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ADPS is not a kind of a shortener.

¬{C}{go}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the antipasto is not anginal but it does queue Uriah. ; $context$ = sent1: the antipasto is not actinomycetal if the fact that it is a shortener and it is a pascal does not hold. sent2: if the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus then that the divider is actinomycetal and a pascal does not hold. sent3: if the Latinist is a kind of subclinical thing that does not queue Ouranopithecus then the kabob does not queue Ouranopithecus. sent4: that the antipasto is a shortener and a pascal is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if that the antipasto is not actinomycetal is right then that it is a kind of non-anginal thing that queues Uriah is false.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the antipasto is not actinomycetal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not actinomycetal hold that it is non-anginal thing that does queue Uriah is not true.

If that is not actinomycetal, then it is not true.

that the antipasto is a shortener and a pascal is incorrect.

that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong.

sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

¬({B} & {AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: {E} sent3: {D} -> {B} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GC} sent8: ({IB} & {BF}) sent9: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {E} -> ({D} v ¬{C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: {K} -> {J} sent14: ({F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({HG} & {CJ}) sent16: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent17: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the twist occurs.

{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent11 -> int1: both the devastation and the conquering used occurs.; int1 -> int2: the conquering used occurs.; sent10 & sent2 -> int3: the flowerlessness happens and/or the trichroism does not occur.; int3 & sent3 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the queuing kava happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

The conquering used occurs if the medievalness does not occur.

the medievalness does not occur.

that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong.

sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

¬({B} & {AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: {E} sent3: {D} -> {B} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GC} sent8: ({IB} & {BF}) sent9: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {E} -> ({D} v ¬{C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: {K} -> {J} sent14: ({F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({HG} & {CJ}) sent16: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent17: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the twist occurs.

{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent11 -> int1: both the devastation and the conquering used occurs.; int1 -> int2: the conquering used occurs.; sent10 & sent2 -> int3: the flowerlessness happens and/or the trichroism does not occur.; int3 & sent3 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the queuing kava happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

The conquering used occurs if the medievalness does not happen.

if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both.

that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong.

sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

¬({B} & {AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: {E} sent3: {D} -> {B} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GC} sent8: ({IB} & {BF}) sent9: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {E} -> ({D} v ¬{C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: {K} -> {J} sent14: ({F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({HG} & {CJ}) sent16: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent17: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the twist occurs.

{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent11 -> int1: both the devastation and the conquering used occurs.; int1 -> int2: the conquering used occurs.; sent10 & sent2 -> int3: the flowerlessness happens and/or the trichroism does not occur.; int3 & sent3 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the queuing kava happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

The conquering used occurs if the medievalness doesn't happen.

the conquering cupping happens.

that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong.

sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

¬({B} & {AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: {E} sent3: {D} -> {B} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GC} sent8: ({IB} & {BF}) sent9: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {E} -> ({D} v ¬{C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: {K} -> {J} sent14: ({F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({HG} & {CJ}) sent16: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent17: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the twist occurs.

{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent11 -> int1: both the devastation and the conquering used occurs.; int1 -> int2: the conquering used occurs.; sent10 & sent2 -> int3: the flowerlessness happens and/or the trichroism does not occur.; int3 & sent3 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the queuing kava happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

The conquering used occurs if the medievalness doesn't occur.

that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs.

that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong.

sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

¬({B} & {AB})

sent1: {AA} sent2: {E} sent3: {D} -> {B} sent4: ¬{C} -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & {B}) sent6: {FJ} sent7: {GC} sent8: ({IB} & {BF}) sent9: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent10: {E} -> ({D} v ¬{C}) sent11: ¬{A} sent12: {J} -> {I} sent13: {K} -> {J} sent14: ({F} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ({HG} & {CJ}) sent16: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent17: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent18: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the twist occurs.

{DD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that both the queuing kava and the conquering used occurs is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the devastation occurs. sent2: the conquering cupping happens. sent3: that the queuing kava does not occur is prevented by that the flowerlessness occurs. sent4: if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens. sent5: the fact that the flowerlessness happens and the queuing kava occurs is incorrect if the trichroism does not occur. sent6: the uninstructiveness happens. sent7: the accomplishing happens. sent8: both the conquering SCPO and the appraisal occurs. sent9: if both the provincial and the conquering viscera happens then the lingering does not occur. sent10: if the conquering cupping occurs then the flowerlessness occurs or the trichroism does not occur or both. sent11: the medievalness does not occur. sent12: the provincialness is brought about by the chauffeur. sent13: if the explicitness happens the chauffeur happens. sent14: the trichroism is prevented by that both the president and the conquering cupping occurs. sent15: the exhortation occurs and the nonassociativeness happens. sent16: the queuing kava does not occur if that the flowerlessness occurs and the queuing kava occurs is wrong. sent17: if the medievalness does not occur then the devastation happens. sent18: that the president happens and the conquering cupping happens is caused by that the lingering does not occur. sent19: if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent11 -> int1: both the devastation and the conquering used occurs.; int1 -> int2: the conquering used occurs.; sent10 & sent2 -> int3: the flowerlessness happens and/or the trichroism does not occur.; int3 & sent3 & sent4 -> int4: the fact that the queuing kava happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the medievalness does not occur the devastation and the conquering used occurs.

The conquering occurs if the medievalness doesn't happen.

if that the trichroism does not occur is correct then the queuing kava happens.

that the fact that the noncom is non-parietal thing that is not an atrophy does not hold is right.

sent1: something is a bug. sent2: the noncom is a kind of non-parietal thing that is not an atrophy if the barn is non-parietal. sent3: the barn is biogenetic and does not conquer diploid. sent4: the barn is not an atrophy if the noncom does atrophy. sent5: the noncom does not atrophy if the barn does atrophy. sent6: if something does atrophy the noncom is not parietal. sent7: the noncom does not perk. sent8: the barn is parietal and does not perk if there is something such that it is a bug.

¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the noncom is non-parietal thing that is not an atrophy does not hold is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a bug. sent2: the noncom is a kind of non-parietal thing that is not an atrophy if the barn is non-parietal. sent3: the barn is biogenetic and does not conquer diploid. sent4: the barn is not an atrophy if the noncom does atrophy. sent5: the noncom does not atrophy if the barn does atrophy. sent6: if something does atrophy the noncom is not parietal. sent7: the noncom does not perk. sent8: the barn is parietal and does not perk if there is something such that it is a bug. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the barn is parietal and does not perk.; int1 -> int2: the barn is parietal.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a bug.