hypothesis
stringlengths 11
177
| context
stringlengths 0
2.71k
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
35
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
865
| proofs
sequence | proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | proofs_formula
sequence | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 1
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
158
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | negative_proofs
sequence | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 99
2.85k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
| version
stringclasses 1
value | premise
stringlengths 0
188
| assumptions
sequence | paraphrased_premises
sequence | paraphrased_premise
stringlengths 0
753
| assumption
stringlengths 0
200
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
the fact that the watercannon queues Pavlova hold. | sent1: something does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout if it is spatial. sent2: there is something such that it is a kind of a Wakashan. sent3: something is not a gowned but it does queue Pavlova if it does not propound plumbago. sent4: if the fohn does not gown and does queue Pavlova the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. sent5: the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. sent6: if the fohn is an impossible then it is spatial. sent7: the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago. sent8: the fact that something is not a kind of a Hungarian but it is a kind of a buttercup does not hold if it does not queue passe-partout. sent9: if something is not non-distributive then it is a hyson. sent10: the firewall is a kind of a Cambodian. sent11: that the fohn is distributive if that the fohn is both not a Wakashan and not imperishable is not right hold. sent12: the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian. sent13: if the fohn is a hyson then it is not an upgrade and does not conquer watercannon. sent14: the fohn is impossible if it is not a kind of an upgrade and it does not conquer watercannon. sent15: something does not propound plumbago if the fact that it is not Hungarian but a buttercup is wrong. | {B}{b} | sent1: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent2: (Ex): {N}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {I}{a} -> {H}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): {M}x -> {L}x sent10: {AB}{aa} sent11: ¬(¬{N}{a} & ¬{O}{a}) -> {M}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent13: {L}{a} -> (¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) sent14: (¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) -> {I}{a} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x | [
"sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it does not whizz and it is a kind of a Cambodian.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fohn propounds plumbago.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent12 -> int2: {A}{a}; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. | ¬{B}{b} | 12 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if that the fohn does not propound plumbago hold then it does not gown and queues Pavlova.; sent15 -> int4: if the fact that the fohn is a kind of non-Hungarian thing that is a buttercup is false the fact that it does not propound plumbago is not incorrect.; sent8 -> int5: if the fohn does not queue passe-partout then that it is not Hungarian and it is a buttercup is false.; sent1 -> int6: if the fohn is spatial then it does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout.; sent9 -> int7: if the fohn is distributive then it is a hyson.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the watercannon queues Pavlova hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout if it is spatial. sent2: there is something such that it is a kind of a Wakashan. sent3: something is not a gowned but it does queue Pavlova if it does not propound plumbago. sent4: if the fohn does not gown and does queue Pavlova the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. sent5: the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. sent6: if the fohn is an impossible then it is spatial. sent7: the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago. sent8: the fact that something is not a kind of a Hungarian but it is a kind of a buttercup does not hold if it does not queue passe-partout. sent9: if something is not non-distributive then it is a hyson. sent10: the firewall is a kind of a Cambodian. sent11: that the fohn is distributive if that the fohn is both not a Wakashan and not imperishable is not right hold. sent12: the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian. sent13: if the fohn is a hyson then it is not an upgrade and does not conquer watercannon. sent14: the fohn is impossible if it is not a kind of an upgrade and it does not conquer watercannon. sent15: something does not propound plumbago if the fact that it is not Hungarian but a buttercup is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it does not whizz and it is a kind of a Cambodian.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fohn propounds plumbago.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. | [
"the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian.",
"the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago."
] | [
"The firewall is a kind of Cambodian.",
"The firewall is similar to that of a Cambodian."
] | The firewall is a kind of Cambodian. | the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian. |
the fact that the watercannon queues Pavlova hold. | sent1: something does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout if it is spatial. sent2: there is something such that it is a kind of a Wakashan. sent3: something is not a gowned but it does queue Pavlova if it does not propound plumbago. sent4: if the fohn does not gown and does queue Pavlova the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. sent5: the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. sent6: if the fohn is an impossible then it is spatial. sent7: the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago. sent8: the fact that something is not a kind of a Hungarian but it is a kind of a buttercup does not hold if it does not queue passe-partout. sent9: if something is not non-distributive then it is a hyson. sent10: the firewall is a kind of a Cambodian. sent11: that the fohn is distributive if that the fohn is both not a Wakashan and not imperishable is not right hold. sent12: the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian. sent13: if the fohn is a hyson then it is not an upgrade and does not conquer watercannon. sent14: the fohn is impossible if it is not a kind of an upgrade and it does not conquer watercannon. sent15: something does not propound plumbago if the fact that it is not Hungarian but a buttercup is wrong. | {B}{b} | sent1: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent2: (Ex): {N}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {I}{a} -> {H}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): {M}x -> {L}x sent10: {AB}{aa} sent11: ¬(¬{N}{a} & ¬{O}{a}) -> {M}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent13: {L}{a} -> (¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) sent14: (¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) -> {I}{a} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x | [
"sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it does not whizz and it is a kind of a Cambodian.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fohn propounds plumbago.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent12 -> int2: {A}{a}; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. | ¬{B}{b} | 12 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if that the fohn does not propound plumbago hold then it does not gown and queues Pavlova.; sent15 -> int4: if the fact that the fohn is a kind of non-Hungarian thing that is a buttercup is false the fact that it does not propound plumbago is not incorrect.; sent8 -> int5: if the fohn does not queue passe-partout then that it is not Hungarian and it is a buttercup is false.; sent1 -> int6: if the fohn is spatial then it does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout.; sent9 -> int7: if the fohn is distributive then it is a hyson.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the watercannon queues Pavlova hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not queue firewall and does not queue passe-partout if it is spatial. sent2: there is something such that it is a kind of a Wakashan. sent3: something is not a gowned but it does queue Pavlova if it does not propound plumbago. sent4: if the fohn does not gown and does queue Pavlova the watercannon does not queue Pavlova. sent5: the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. sent6: if the fohn is an impossible then it is spatial. sent7: the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago. sent8: the fact that something is not a kind of a Hungarian but it is a kind of a buttercup does not hold if it does not queue passe-partout. sent9: if something is not non-distributive then it is a hyson. sent10: the firewall is a kind of a Cambodian. sent11: that the fohn is distributive if that the fohn is both not a Wakashan and not imperishable is not right hold. sent12: the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian. sent13: if the fohn is a hyson then it is not an upgrade and does not conquer watercannon. sent14: the fohn is impossible if it is not a kind of an upgrade and it does not conquer watercannon. sent15: something does not propound plumbago if the fact that it is not Hungarian but a buttercup is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: there is something such that it does not whizz and it is a kind of a Cambodian.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fohn propounds plumbago.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the firewall does not whizz but it is a kind of a Cambodian. | [
"the fohn does propound plumbago if something does not whizz and is a kind of a Cambodian.",
"the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago."
] | [
"The firewall is a kind of Cambodian.",
"The firewall is similar to that of a Cambodian."
] | The firewall is similar to that of a Cambodian. | the watercannon queues Pavlova if the fohn propounds plumbago. |
the shipwright is a pestilence. | sent1: the seesaw does not queue conurbation. sent2: the carnelian is acrocentric. sent3: the shipwright is a pestilence if something that is adsorbable is acrocentric. sent4: there exists something such that it is acrocentric. sent5: everything does not queue Trotsky and is not prudent. sent6: if something is not a silhouette the isoleucine does not conquer gusseted. sent7: the seesaw is not a silhouette if it does not queue conurbation. sent8: that that the shelter is not non-acrocentric and is not adsorbable does not hold if there is something such that it is not non-acrocentric is not wrong. sent9: if something that does not conquer gusseted does not queue Trotsky then it is not acrocentric. sent10: the carnelian is adsorbable and it is acrocentric. | {C}{a} | sent1: ¬{G}{d} sent2: {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{H}x) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{D}{c} sent7: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬{F}{d} sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) | [
"sent10 -> int1: there exists something such that it is adsorbable and acrocentric.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent10 -> int1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the shipwright is not a pestilence. | ¬{C}{a} | 9 | [
"sent5 -> int2: the endomorph does not queue Trotsky and is not prudent.; int2 -> int3: that the endomorph does not queue Trotsky hold.; int3 -> int4: everything does not queue Trotsky.; int4 -> int5: the isoleucine does not queue Trotsky.; sent7 & sent1 -> int6: the seesaw is not a silhouette.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is not a silhouette is true.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the fact that the isoleucine does not conquer gusseted is right.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the isoleucine does not conquer gusseted and it does not queue Trotsky.; sent9 -> int10: if the isoleucine does not conquer gusseted and does not queue Trotsky then that it is not acrocentric hold.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the isoleucine is not acrocentric.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not acrocentric.; sent8 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the shelter is acrocentric but it is not adsorbable is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the shipwright is a pestilence. ; $context$ = sent1: the seesaw does not queue conurbation. sent2: the carnelian is acrocentric. sent3: the shipwright is a pestilence if something that is adsorbable is acrocentric. sent4: there exists something such that it is acrocentric. sent5: everything does not queue Trotsky and is not prudent. sent6: if something is not a silhouette the isoleucine does not conquer gusseted. sent7: the seesaw is not a silhouette if it does not queue conurbation. sent8: that that the shelter is not non-acrocentric and is not adsorbable does not hold if there is something such that it is not non-acrocentric is not wrong. sent9: if something that does not conquer gusseted does not queue Trotsky then it is not acrocentric. sent10: the carnelian is adsorbable and it is acrocentric. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> int1: there exists something such that it is adsorbable and acrocentric.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the carnelian is adsorbable and it is acrocentric. | [
"the shipwright is a pestilence if something that is adsorbable is acrocentric."
] | [
"the carnelian is adsorbable and it is acrocentric."
] | the carnelian is adsorbable and it is acrocentric. | the shipwright is a pestilence if something that is adsorbable is acrocentric. |
the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. | sent1: that the unpretentiousness does not occur but the conquering excerpt occurs prevents that the evolving occurs. sent2: the unpretentiousness does not occur and the rings does not occur if the disposableness happens. sent3: if the Newness happens then not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens. sent4: if the uppercaseness does not occur the fact that the trekking does not occur and the striding does not occur is wrong. sent5: if not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens then the uppercaseness does not occur. sent6: that the Newness occurs and the queuing Mytilidae occurs is brought about by that the evolving does not occur. sent7: the uppercaseness happens. sent8: the fact that the non-bicameralness and the non-parasympathomimeticness occurs is not right. sent9: that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. sent10: if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the disposableness occurs and the raptorialness happens is triggered by that the communications does not occur. sent12: the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness happens is not correct if the aromaticness happens. | ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: {K} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent3: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{HS} & ¬{GU}) sent5: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{HJ} & ¬{FP}) sent9: {A} -> {B} sent10: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent11: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent12: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the aromaticness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: {B}; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the fact that the trek does not occur and the stride does not occur does not hold. | ¬(¬{HS} & ¬{GU}) | 11 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the unpretentiousness does not occur but the conquering excerpt occurs prevents that the evolving occurs. sent2: the unpretentiousness does not occur and the rings does not occur if the disposableness happens. sent3: if the Newness happens then not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens. sent4: if the uppercaseness does not occur the fact that the trekking does not occur and the striding does not occur is wrong. sent5: if not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens then the uppercaseness does not occur. sent6: that the Newness occurs and the queuing Mytilidae occurs is brought about by that the evolving does not occur. sent7: the uppercaseness happens. sent8: the fact that the non-bicameralness and the non-parasympathomimeticness occurs is not right. sent9: that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. sent10: if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the disposableness occurs and the raptorialness happens is triggered by that the communications does not occur. sent12: the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness happens is not correct if the aromaticness happens. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the aromaticness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. | [
"the uppercaseness happens.",
"if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong."
] | [
"If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness is not false.",
"If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness isn't false."
] | If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness is not false. | the uppercaseness happens. |
the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. | sent1: that the unpretentiousness does not occur but the conquering excerpt occurs prevents that the evolving occurs. sent2: the unpretentiousness does not occur and the rings does not occur if the disposableness happens. sent3: if the Newness happens then not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens. sent4: if the uppercaseness does not occur the fact that the trekking does not occur and the striding does not occur is wrong. sent5: if not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens then the uppercaseness does not occur. sent6: that the Newness occurs and the queuing Mytilidae occurs is brought about by that the evolving does not occur. sent7: the uppercaseness happens. sent8: the fact that the non-bicameralness and the non-parasympathomimeticness occurs is not right. sent9: that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. sent10: if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the disposableness occurs and the raptorialness happens is triggered by that the communications does not occur. sent12: the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness happens is not correct if the aromaticness happens. | ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) | sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: {K} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent3: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{HS} & ¬{GU}) sent5: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{A} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{HJ} & ¬{FP}) sent9: {A} -> {B} sent10: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent11: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent12: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the aromaticness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: {B}; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the fact that the trek does not occur and the stride does not occur does not hold. | ¬(¬{HS} & ¬{GU}) | 11 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the unpretentiousness does not occur but the conquering excerpt occurs prevents that the evolving occurs. sent2: the unpretentiousness does not occur and the rings does not occur if the disposableness happens. sent3: if the Newness happens then not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens. sent4: if the uppercaseness does not occur the fact that the trekking does not occur and the striding does not occur is wrong. sent5: if not the aromaticness but the glowering torpedo happens then the uppercaseness does not occur. sent6: that the Newness occurs and the queuing Mytilidae occurs is brought about by that the evolving does not occur. sent7: the uppercaseness happens. sent8: the fact that the non-bicameralness and the non-parasympathomimeticness occurs is not right. sent9: that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. sent10: if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the disposableness occurs and the raptorialness happens is triggered by that the communications does not occur. sent12: the fact that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness happens is not correct if the aromaticness happens. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the aromaticness happens.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the aromaticness occurs is not false if the uppercaseness happens. | [
"the uppercaseness happens.",
"if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong."
] | [
"If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness is not false.",
"If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness isn't false."
] | If the uppercaseness happens, the aromaticness isn't false. | if the fact that the aromaticness happens is not false that the glowering torpedo does not occur and the Newness does not occur is wrong. |
the fact that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and is not a hypercoaster is not correct. | sent1: the usurper is not holistic. sent2: if something that is not anorectal is an apartheid then the Chipewyan is not a kind of a platen. sent3: something is not a hypercoaster but it is a Dreyfus. sent4: that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus hold. sent5: the usurper is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the shoot-'em-up is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent6: the bitthead is a kind of non-anorectal thing that is an apartheid. sent7: there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. sent8: that the usurper is a trichion hold. sent9: the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus. sent10: if something is not myalgic it is a Markov and it is Kafkaesque. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Dreyfus and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is incorrect if it is a Markov. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-holistic and not extramural the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent13: the shoot-'em-up is not myalgic if the fact that the usurper either does not ornament or is myalgic or both does not hold. sent14: the fact that the crevice is not a kind of a mated and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is correct. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Dreyfus and is a hypercoaster. sent16: the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a hypercoaster. | ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: ¬{AA}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent3: (Ex): (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{A}{b} sent5: {A}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (¬{I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {ED}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x & {D}x) sent11: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent13: ¬(¬{F}{a} v {E}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent14: (¬{AC}{be} & ¬{C}{be}) sent15: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent16: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬{C}x | [
"sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent16 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and it is not a hypercoaster is false. | ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent11 -> int2: if the shoot-'em-up is a Markov then the fact that it is not a Dreyfus and it is not a hypercoaster is false.; sent10 -> int3: the shoot-'em-up is a Markov and is Kafkaesque if it is not myalgic.; sent6 -> int4: something is non-anorectal an apartheid.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the Chipewyan is not a platen.; int5 -> int6: that something is not a platen is correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and is not a hypercoaster is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the usurper is not holistic. sent2: if something that is not anorectal is an apartheid then the Chipewyan is not a kind of a platen. sent3: something is not a hypercoaster but it is a Dreyfus. sent4: that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus hold. sent5: the usurper is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the shoot-'em-up is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent6: the bitthead is a kind of non-anorectal thing that is an apartheid. sent7: there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. sent8: that the usurper is a trichion hold. sent9: the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus. sent10: if something is not myalgic it is a Markov and it is Kafkaesque. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Dreyfus and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is incorrect if it is a Markov. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-holistic and not extramural the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent13: the shoot-'em-up is not myalgic if the fact that the usurper either does not ornament or is myalgic or both does not hold. sent14: the fact that the crevice is not a kind of a mated and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is correct. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Dreyfus and is a hypercoaster. sent16: the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a hypercoaster. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. | [
"the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural.",
"the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus."
] | [
"It isn'tholistic and it isn't extramural.",
"There is something that is notholistic and not extramural."
] | It isn'tholistic and it isn't extramural. | the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural. |
the fact that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and is not a hypercoaster is not correct. | sent1: the usurper is not holistic. sent2: if something that is not anorectal is an apartheid then the Chipewyan is not a kind of a platen. sent3: something is not a hypercoaster but it is a Dreyfus. sent4: that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus hold. sent5: the usurper is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the shoot-'em-up is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent6: the bitthead is a kind of non-anorectal thing that is an apartheid. sent7: there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. sent8: that the usurper is a trichion hold. sent9: the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus. sent10: if something is not myalgic it is a Markov and it is Kafkaesque. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Dreyfus and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is incorrect if it is a Markov. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-holistic and not extramural the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent13: the shoot-'em-up is not myalgic if the fact that the usurper either does not ornament or is myalgic or both does not hold. sent14: the fact that the crevice is not a kind of a mated and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is correct. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Dreyfus and is a hypercoaster. sent16: the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a hypercoaster. | ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: ¬{AA}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent3: (Ex): (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent4: ¬{A}{b} sent5: {A}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (¬{I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {ED}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x & {D}x) sent11: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent13: ¬(¬{F}{a} v {E}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent14: (¬{AC}{be} & ¬{C}{be}) sent15: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent16: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬{C}x | [
"sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent7 & sent16 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and it is not a hypercoaster is false. | ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent11 -> int2: if the shoot-'em-up is a Markov then the fact that it is not a Dreyfus and it is not a hypercoaster is false.; sent10 -> int3: the shoot-'em-up is a Markov and is Kafkaesque if it is not myalgic.; sent6 -> int4: something is non-anorectal an apartheid.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the Chipewyan is not a platen.; int5 -> int6: that something is not a platen is correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and is not a hypercoaster is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the usurper is not holistic. sent2: if something that is not anorectal is an apartheid then the Chipewyan is not a kind of a platen. sent3: something is not a hypercoaster but it is a Dreyfus. sent4: that the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus hold. sent5: the usurper is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the shoot-'em-up is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent6: the bitthead is a kind of non-anorectal thing that is an apartheid. sent7: there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. sent8: that the usurper is a trichion hold. sent9: the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus. sent10: if something is not myalgic it is a Markov and it is Kafkaesque. sent11: the fact that something is not a kind of a Dreyfus and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is incorrect if it is a Markov. sent12: if there is something such that it is not non-holistic and not extramural the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus. sent13: the shoot-'em-up is not myalgic if the fact that the usurper either does not ornament or is myalgic or both does not hold. sent14: the fact that the crevice is not a kind of a mated and it is not a kind of a hypercoaster is correct. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Dreyfus and is a hypercoaster. sent16: the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a hypercoaster. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent16 -> int1: the usurper is a kind of a Dreyfus.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it is not holistic and it is not extramural. | [
"the usurper is a Dreyfus if a non-holistic thing is not extramural.",
"the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus."
] | [
"It isn'tholistic and it isn't extramural.",
"There is something that is notholistic and not extramural."
] | There is something that is notholistic and not extramural. | the shoot-'em-up is not a Dreyfus and not a hypercoaster if the usurper is a Dreyfus. |
the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. | sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. | ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) | sent1: ¬({I}{a} v {H}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: (x): {H}x -> ¬{G}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{DF}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{BA}x v {HM}x) -> {CC}x sent7: {D}{b} sent8: {I}{c} -> {H}{c} sent9: ({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent11: {G}{b} -> {E}{a} sent12: {G}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{EU}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent19: (x): ¬({C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent20: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent21: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent22: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: ¬{G}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int1: if that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is incorrect then the fact that it is a Kurosawa is right.; sent18 -> int2: if the fire-eater is a kind of a grange that it is not Panamanian and not a scholiast does not hold.; sent9 -> int3: the fire-eater is a grange.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and is not a kind of a scholiast is incorrect.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the have is a kind of a dervish.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{a}; sent18 -> int2: {H}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent9 -> int3: {H}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent13 & int4 -> int5: {E}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the fact that the study does not partition and does not conquer anode is wrong. | ¬(¬{DK}{aa} & ¬{DF}{aa}) | 9 | [
"sent4 -> int6: if the study is not a kind of a tasseled that it is not a partition and it does not conquer anode is false.; sent2 -> int7: if the pecan is not a scholiast the fact that it is not a kind of a Panamanian and it is not a dervish is incorrect.; sent3 -> int8: if the pecan is a grange it is not a scholiast.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. | [
"if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold.",
"the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity.",
"if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish."
] | [
"If that is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it isn't inter linear and it isn't orthodox, it's a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa."
] | If that is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa. | if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. |
the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. | sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. | ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) | sent1: ¬({I}{a} v {H}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: (x): {H}x -> ¬{G}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{DF}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{BA}x v {HM}x) -> {CC}x sent7: {D}{b} sent8: {I}{c} -> {H}{c} sent9: ({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent11: {G}{b} -> {E}{a} sent12: {G}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{EU}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent19: (x): ¬({C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent20: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent21: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent22: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: ¬{G}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int1: if that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is incorrect then the fact that it is a Kurosawa is right.; sent18 -> int2: if the fire-eater is a kind of a grange that it is not Panamanian and not a scholiast does not hold.; sent9 -> int3: the fire-eater is a grange.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and is not a kind of a scholiast is incorrect.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the have is a kind of a dervish.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{a}; sent18 -> int2: {H}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent9 -> int3: {H}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent13 & int4 -> int5: {E}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the fact that the study does not partition and does not conquer anode is wrong. | ¬(¬{DK}{aa} & ¬{DF}{aa}) | 9 | [
"sent4 -> int6: if the study is not a kind of a tasseled that it is not a partition and it does not conquer anode is false.; sent2 -> int7: if the pecan is not a scholiast the fact that it is not a kind of a Panamanian and it is not a dervish is incorrect.; sent3 -> int8: if the pecan is a grange it is not a scholiast.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. | [
"if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold.",
"the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity.",
"if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish."
] | [
"If that is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it isn't inter linear and it isn't orthodox, it's a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa."
] | If it isn't inter linear and it isn't orthodox, it's a kind of Kurosawa. | the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. |
the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. | sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. | ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) | sent1: ¬({I}{a} v {H}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: (x): {H}x -> ¬{G}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{DF}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{BA}x v {HM}x) -> {CC}x sent7: {D}{b} sent8: {I}{c} -> {H}{c} sent9: ({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent11: {G}{b} -> {E}{a} sent12: {G}{a} -> {B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{EU}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent17: (x): {A}x -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent19: (x): ¬({C}x v {B}x) -> {D}x sent20: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent21: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent22: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: ¬{G}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int1: if that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is incorrect then the fact that it is a Kurosawa is right.; sent18 -> int2: if the fire-eater is a kind of a grange that it is not Panamanian and not a scholiast does not hold.; sent9 -> int3: the fire-eater is a grange.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and is not a kind of a scholiast is incorrect.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the have is a kind of a dervish.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{a}; sent18 -> int2: {H}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent9 -> int3: {H}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}); sent13 & int4 -> int5: {E}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the fact that the study does not partition and does not conquer anode is wrong. | ¬(¬{DK}{aa} & ¬{DF}{aa}) | 9 | [
"sent4 -> int6: if the study is not a kind of a tasseled that it is not a partition and it does not conquer anode is false.; sent2 -> int7: if the pecan is not a scholiast the fact that it is not a kind of a Panamanian and it is not a dervish is incorrect.; sent3 -> int8: if the pecan is a grange it is not a scholiast.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the have is a Kurosawa and a dervish. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either the have is a simplicity or it is a grange or both is false then it is interlinear. sent2: the fact that something is not Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not true if it is not a kind of a scholiast. sent3: if something is a kind of a grange it is not a scholiast. sent4: the fact that something is not a partition and it does not conquer anode does not hold if it is not a tasseled. sent5: if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent6: something is a Phalangiidae if the fact that it is not a kind of a like and/or it is myopathic does not hold. sent7: that the fire-eater is a Kurosawa is right. sent8: if the pecan is a kind of a simplicity then that it is a kind of a grange is right. sent9: the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity. sent10: if there is something such that it is a tasseled the fact that the have is not interlinear or it is orthodox or both is wrong. sent11: the have is a kind of a dervish if that the fire-eater is a scholiast is correct. sent12: if the have is a scholiast then the fire-eater is orthodox. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. sent14: the study is orthodox but it is not a tasseled if the have is not interlinear. sent15: that the fire-eater is not a native but non-Panamanian does not hold. sent16: the fact that the fire-eater is non-Panamanian a scholiast is wrong. sent17: the have is interlinear if there is something such that it is a kind of a tasseled. sent18: if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold. sent19: if the fact that something is interlinear and/or it is orthodox is not right then it is a kind of a Kurosawa. sent20: if something is not interlinear the fact that it is orthodox and it is a tasseled is wrong. sent21: the have is a Kurosawa and is not interlinear if the fire-eater is not a kind of a dervish. sent22: the fire-eater is not a dervish if the fact that that the pecan is non-Panamanian and it is not a dervish is not false does not hold. sent23: the have is not a kind of a scholiast. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if that something is not interlinear and/or it is orthodox does not hold it is a kind of a Kurosawa. | [
"if something is a kind of a grange the fact that it is not a Panamanian and it is not a scholiast does not hold.",
"the fire-eater is a grange but it is not a simplicity.",
"if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish."
] | [
"If that is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it isn't inter linear and it isn't orthodox, it's a kind of Kurosawa.",
"If it is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa."
] | If it is not inter linear and it is orthodox, it is a kind of Kurosawa. | if the fact that the fact that the fire-eater is not Panamanian and it is not a scholiast is not correct hold then the have is a dervish. |
the contestant is not a kind of a victim. | sent1: if something that does propound butcherbird is not existent the contestant is not a victim. sent2: there is something such that it does propound butcherbird. sent3: the retem propounds butcherbird. sent4: the retem does propound butcherbird but it is not existent. sent5: there is something such that it is nonexistent. sent6: if something that is not a potlatch conquers suspense then that it is a victim is not false. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of existent thing that is not a victim. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (Ex): {AA}x sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent7: (Ex): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) | [
"sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that it propounds butcherbird and is not existent.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the contestant is a victim. | {A}{a} | 4 | [
"sent6 -> int2: the fact that the contestant is a victim hold if it is not a potlatch and it does conquer suspense.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the contestant is not a kind of a victim. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that does propound butcherbird is not existent the contestant is not a victim. sent2: there is something such that it does propound butcherbird. sent3: the retem propounds butcherbird. sent4: the retem does propound butcherbird but it is not existent. sent5: there is something such that it is nonexistent. sent6: if something that is not a potlatch conquers suspense then that it is a victim is not false. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of existent thing that is not a victim. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that it propounds butcherbird and is not existent.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the retem does propound butcherbird but it is not existent. | [
"if something that does propound butcherbird is not existent the contestant is not a victim."
] | [
"the retem does propound butcherbird but it is not existent."
] | the retem does propound butcherbird but it is not existent. | if something that does propound butcherbird is not existent the contestant is not a victim. |
the fact that something is not a sapphirine is not true. | sent1: the rectus is not a repeater. sent2: there is nothing such that it is unalike and is not a kind of a shopfront. sent3: the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine if the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is non-canonist. sent4: the mortar is a shopfront if the fact that the homograft is unalike but not a shopfront is false. sent5: the rectus is not a canonist. sent6: if a non-sapphirine thing does not queue nutlet it is not a canonist. sent7: the rectus does queue crosscut if the pop-up is non-hydrous thing that does not conquer sprit. sent8: the pop-up is not a kind of a canonist. sent9: the silverware is non-gustatory and not impassable if the clown is not a kind of a hadrosaur. sent10: something is not a sapphirine and it does not queue nutlet if the fact that it does queue crosscut is true. sent11: something is a sapphirine. sent12: the mortar is a kind of a hadrosaur if it is a kind of a shopfront. sent13: the rectus is not a sapphirine if the pop-up queues nutlet. sent14: if the mortar is a kind of a hadrosaur the clown is not a hadrosaur. | ¬((Ex): ¬{C}x) | sent1: ¬{HL}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({L}x & ¬{J}x) sent3: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: ¬({L}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) -> {J}{e} sent5: ¬{B}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent8: ¬{B}{a} sent9: ¬{I}{d} -> (¬{H}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent10: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent11: (Ex): {C}x sent12: {J}{e} -> {I}{e} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent14: {I}{e} -> ¬{I}{d} | [
"sent8 -> int1: the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is not a canonist.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent3 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the rectus is not a canonist. | ¬{B}{b} | 11 | [
"sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the rectus is non-sapphirine and it does not queue nutlet hold then it is not a canonist.; sent10 -> int4: the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine and it does not queue nutlet if it does queue crosscut.; sent2 -> int5: the fact that the homograft is unalike but it is not a shopfront is not true.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: that the mortar is a shopfront is right.; sent12 & int6 -> int7: the mortar is a kind of a hadrosaur.; sent14 & int7 -> int8: the clown is not a hadrosaur.; sent9 & int8 -> int9: the silverware is not gustatory and it is not impassable.; int9 -> int10: the fact that the silverware is not impassable is correct.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is not impassable.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that something is not a sapphirine is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the rectus is not a repeater. sent2: there is nothing such that it is unalike and is not a kind of a shopfront. sent3: the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine if the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is non-canonist. sent4: the mortar is a shopfront if the fact that the homograft is unalike but not a shopfront is false. sent5: the rectus is not a canonist. sent6: if a non-sapphirine thing does not queue nutlet it is not a canonist. sent7: the rectus does queue crosscut if the pop-up is non-hydrous thing that does not conquer sprit. sent8: the pop-up is not a kind of a canonist. sent9: the silverware is non-gustatory and not impassable if the clown is not a kind of a hadrosaur. sent10: something is not a sapphirine and it does not queue nutlet if the fact that it does queue crosscut is true. sent11: something is a sapphirine. sent12: the mortar is a kind of a hadrosaur if it is a kind of a shopfront. sent13: the rectus is not a sapphirine if the pop-up queues nutlet. sent14: if the mortar is a kind of a hadrosaur the clown is not a hadrosaur. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is not a canonist.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the pop-up is not a kind of a canonist. | [
"the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine if the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is non-canonist."
] | [
"the pop-up is not a kind of a canonist."
] | the pop-up is not a kind of a canonist. | the rectus is not a kind of a sapphirine if the pop-up does queue nutlet and/or it is non-canonist. |
the fact that the thermosphere is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound does not hold. | sent1: that something does not conquer foxhound and is not a dazzled is not true if it does not queue denationalization. sent2: if something is finer that it queues tulip and it does not queue study is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is non-sabbatical thing that conquers foxhound does not hold if it does not queue study. sent4: if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong. sent5: if the thermosphere does not queue study the fact that it is sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is not correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study. sent7: something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. sent8: if something is granuliferous then it is not a sabbatical and does not conquer foxhound. | ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬{JH}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{CL}x) sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the thermosphere does not queue study.; sent4 -> int2: if the thermosphere does not queue study then that it is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the thermosphere does not conquer foxhound and it does not dazzle is false if it does not queue denationalization. | ¬{JH}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{CL}{a}) | 1 | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the thermosphere is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not conquer foxhound and is not a dazzled is not true if it does not queue denationalization. sent2: if something is finer that it queues tulip and it does not queue study is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is non-sabbatical thing that conquers foxhound does not hold if it does not queue study. sent4: if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong. sent5: if the thermosphere does not queue study the fact that it is sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is not correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study. sent7: something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. sent8: if something is granuliferous then it is not a sabbatical and does not conquer foxhound. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the thermosphere does not queue study.; sent4 -> int2: if the thermosphere does not queue study then that it is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study.",
"if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong."
] | [
"There is something that does queue tulip.",
"There is something that does queue tulips."
] | There is something that does queue tulip. | if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study. |
the fact that the thermosphere is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound does not hold. | sent1: that something does not conquer foxhound and is not a dazzled is not true if it does not queue denationalization. sent2: if something is finer that it queues tulip and it does not queue study is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is non-sabbatical thing that conquers foxhound does not hold if it does not queue study. sent4: if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong. sent5: if the thermosphere does not queue study the fact that it is sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is not correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study. sent7: something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. sent8: if something is granuliferous then it is not a sabbatical and does not conquer foxhound. | ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬{JH}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{CL}x) sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the thermosphere does not queue study.; sent4 -> int2: if the thermosphere does not queue study then that it is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the thermosphere does not conquer foxhound and it does not dazzle is false if it does not queue denationalization. | ¬{JH}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & ¬{CL}{a}) | 1 | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the thermosphere is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not conquer foxhound and is not a dazzled is not true if it does not queue denationalization. sent2: if something is finer that it queues tulip and it does not queue study is wrong. sent3: the fact that something is non-sabbatical thing that conquers foxhound does not hold if it does not queue study. sent4: if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong. sent5: if the thermosphere does not queue study the fact that it is sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is not correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study. sent7: something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. sent8: if something is granuliferous then it is not a sabbatical and does not conquer foxhound. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the thermosphere does not queue study.; sent4 -> int2: if the thermosphere does not queue study then that it is not a sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is granuliferous and does queue tulip. | [
"if there exists something such that it is not non-granuliferous and it does queue tulip the thermosphere does not queue study.",
"if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong."
] | [
"There is something that does queue tulip.",
"There is something that does queue tulips."
] | There is something that does queue tulips. | if something does not queue study the fact that it is not sabbatical and it does not conquer foxhound is wrong. |
the queuing inpatient does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that both the non-cryonicness and the purple happens does not hold then the purple does not occur. sent2: the conquering Gilgamish but not the queuing psittacosaur happens if the salaaming does not occur. sent3: that the isomerization does not occur is brought about by that the aquatinting happens and the devitalization does not occur. sent4: the queuing inpatient occurs and the raffling occurs if the wasting does not occur. sent5: the defending occurs. sent6: that both the raffling and the conquering skewer occurs is triggered by that the wasting does not occur. sent7: that the purpling does not occur results in that the basic occurs and the heterotrophicness occurs. sent8: the raffling happens and the waste occurs. sent9: the conjunctness happens if the conquering Gilgamish occurs. sent10: if the conjunctness happens then the queuing inpatient does not occur but the defending occurs. sent11: the waste does not occur if that the non-conjunctness and the waste happens is false. sent12: if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur. sent13: if the isomerization does not occur then the fact that the non-cryonicness and the purple occurs is incorrect. sent14: if the basic occurs then that the salaaming does not occur is not wrong. | ¬{D} | sent1: ¬(¬{M} & {K}) -> ¬{K} sent2: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent3: ({O} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{L} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent5: {C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {ES}) sent7: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {F} -> {E} sent10: {E} -> (¬{D} & {C}) sent11: ¬(¬{E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{M} & {K}) sent14: {I} -> ¬{H} | [
"sent8 -> int1: the raffling happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: both the raffle and the defending occurs.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({A} & {C}); int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the conquering skewer happens. | {ES} | 14 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the queuing inpatient does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that both the non-cryonicness and the purple happens does not hold then the purple does not occur. sent2: the conquering Gilgamish but not the queuing psittacosaur happens if the salaaming does not occur. sent3: that the isomerization does not occur is brought about by that the aquatinting happens and the devitalization does not occur. sent4: the queuing inpatient occurs and the raffling occurs if the wasting does not occur. sent5: the defending occurs. sent6: that both the raffling and the conquering skewer occurs is triggered by that the wasting does not occur. sent7: that the purpling does not occur results in that the basic occurs and the heterotrophicness occurs. sent8: the raffling happens and the waste occurs. sent9: the conjunctness happens if the conquering Gilgamish occurs. sent10: if the conjunctness happens then the queuing inpatient does not occur but the defending occurs. sent11: the waste does not occur if that the non-conjunctness and the waste happens is false. sent12: if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur. sent13: if the isomerization does not occur then the fact that the non-cryonicness and the purple occurs is incorrect. sent14: if the basic occurs then that the salaaming does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the raffling happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: both the raffle and the defending occurs.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the raffling happens and the waste occurs. | [
"the defending occurs.",
"if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur."
] | [
"The waste occurs when the raffling happens.",
"The waste occurs after the raffling."
] | The waste occurs when the raffling happens. | the defending occurs. |
the queuing inpatient does not occur. | sent1: if the fact that both the non-cryonicness and the purple happens does not hold then the purple does not occur. sent2: the conquering Gilgamish but not the queuing psittacosaur happens if the salaaming does not occur. sent3: that the isomerization does not occur is brought about by that the aquatinting happens and the devitalization does not occur. sent4: the queuing inpatient occurs and the raffling occurs if the wasting does not occur. sent5: the defending occurs. sent6: that both the raffling and the conquering skewer occurs is triggered by that the wasting does not occur. sent7: that the purpling does not occur results in that the basic occurs and the heterotrophicness occurs. sent8: the raffling happens and the waste occurs. sent9: the conjunctness happens if the conquering Gilgamish occurs. sent10: if the conjunctness happens then the queuing inpatient does not occur but the defending occurs. sent11: the waste does not occur if that the non-conjunctness and the waste happens is false. sent12: if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur. sent13: if the isomerization does not occur then the fact that the non-cryonicness and the purple occurs is incorrect. sent14: if the basic occurs then that the salaaming does not occur is not wrong. | ¬{D} | sent1: ¬(¬{M} & {K}) -> ¬{K} sent2: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent3: ({O} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{L} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent5: {C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {ES}) sent7: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: {F} -> {E} sent10: {E} -> (¬{D} & {C}) sent11: ¬(¬{E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{M} & {K}) sent14: {I} -> ¬{H} | [
"sent8 -> int1: the raffling happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: both the raffle and the defending occurs.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({A} & {C}); int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the conquering skewer happens. | {ES} | 14 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the queuing inpatient does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that both the non-cryonicness and the purple happens does not hold then the purple does not occur. sent2: the conquering Gilgamish but not the queuing psittacosaur happens if the salaaming does not occur. sent3: that the isomerization does not occur is brought about by that the aquatinting happens and the devitalization does not occur. sent4: the queuing inpatient occurs and the raffling occurs if the wasting does not occur. sent5: the defending occurs. sent6: that both the raffling and the conquering skewer occurs is triggered by that the wasting does not occur. sent7: that the purpling does not occur results in that the basic occurs and the heterotrophicness occurs. sent8: the raffling happens and the waste occurs. sent9: the conjunctness happens if the conquering Gilgamish occurs. sent10: if the conjunctness happens then the queuing inpatient does not occur but the defending occurs. sent11: the waste does not occur if that the non-conjunctness and the waste happens is false. sent12: if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur. sent13: if the isomerization does not occur then the fact that the non-cryonicness and the purple occurs is incorrect. sent14: if the basic occurs then that the salaaming does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the raffling happens.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: both the raffle and the defending occurs.; int2 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the raffling happens and the waste occurs. | [
"the defending occurs.",
"if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur."
] | [
"The waste occurs when the raffling happens.",
"The waste occurs after the raffling."
] | The waste occurs after the raffling. | if that both the raffle and the defending happens is not incorrect then the queuing inpatient does not occur. |
something is inconvenient thing that glowers Jacobi. | sent1: the Service is a symbolization. sent2: something glowers Jacobi but it is not inconvenient if it is not a taxiway. sent3: there exists something such that it does not glower infix. sent4: the subduer queues Service and is hydroelectric. sent5: the Service conquers Gilgamish if it is a sublimate. sent6: the Service sublimates. sent7: there is something such that it does glower Jacobi. sent8: there is something such that it is a taxiway. sent9: that something is not a promisee and/or is mutafacient is false if it does glower edict. sent10: The Jacobi does glower Service. sent11: the Service is inconvenient and it is a kind of a taxiway. sent12: the Service does glower Jacobi. sent13: the Service queues Bergson. sent14: if that the Service is a demurrer and/or is a abdominousness does not hold it does not conquer ignorance. sent15: something is not a Milton and glowers edict if it is a kind of a miniaturist. sent16: if the Service glowers Jacobi and is not inconvenient the ormer is inconvenient. sent17: if something that does conquer Gilgamish does not conquer ignorance it is a miniaturist. sent18: the cytomegalovirus is a triplet and does glower Jacobi. sent19: there exists something such that it is a kind of inconvenient thing that is a taxiway. sent20: something does queue wonderberry. sent21: that if that either something is not a promisee or it is mutafacient or both is not right it is not a taxiway is not wrong. | (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) | sent1: {IK}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{N}x sent4: ({S}{bn} & {FR}{bn}) sent5: {M}{a} -> {I}{a} sent6: {M}{a} sent7: (Ex): {C}x sent8: (Ex): {B}x sent9: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x v {E}x) sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: {C}{a} sent13: {HE}{a} sent14: ¬({K}{a} v {L}{a}) -> ¬{J}{a} sent15: (x): {H}x -> (¬{G}x & {F}x) sent16: ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {A}{aq} sent17: (x): ({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}x sent18: ({HL}{co} & {C}{co}) sent19: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent20: (Ex): {BS}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent11 -> int1: the Service is inconvenient.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the Service is inconvenient and does glower Jacobi.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent12 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the ormer is inconvenient. | {A}{aq} | 10 | [
"sent2 -> int3: if the Service is not a taxiway it glowers Jacobi and is not inconvenient.; sent21 -> int4: if that the Service either is not a kind of a promisee or is mutafacient or both does not hold it is not a taxiway.; sent9 -> int5: that the Service is not a promisee and/or it is mutafacient is not true if it glowers edict.; sent15 -> int6: the Service is not a Milton but it does glower edict if it is a kind of a miniaturist.; sent17 -> int7: if the Service conquers Gilgamish but it does not conquer ignorance then it is a miniaturist.; sent5 & sent6 -> int8: the Service does conquer Gilgamish.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = something is inconvenient thing that glowers Jacobi. ; $context$ = sent1: the Service is a symbolization. sent2: something glowers Jacobi but it is not inconvenient if it is not a taxiway. sent3: there exists something such that it does not glower infix. sent4: the subduer queues Service and is hydroelectric. sent5: the Service conquers Gilgamish if it is a sublimate. sent6: the Service sublimates. sent7: there is something such that it does glower Jacobi. sent8: there is something such that it is a taxiway. sent9: that something is not a promisee and/or is mutafacient is false if it does glower edict. sent10: The Jacobi does glower Service. sent11: the Service is inconvenient and it is a kind of a taxiway. sent12: the Service does glower Jacobi. sent13: the Service queues Bergson. sent14: if that the Service is a demurrer and/or is a abdominousness does not hold it does not conquer ignorance. sent15: something is not a Milton and glowers edict if it is a kind of a miniaturist. sent16: if the Service glowers Jacobi and is not inconvenient the ormer is inconvenient. sent17: if something that does conquer Gilgamish does not conquer ignorance it is a miniaturist. sent18: the cytomegalovirus is a triplet and does glower Jacobi. sent19: there exists something such that it is a kind of inconvenient thing that is a taxiway. sent20: something does queue wonderberry. sent21: that if that either something is not a promisee or it is mutafacient or both is not right it is not a taxiway is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent11 -> int1: the Service is inconvenient.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the Service is inconvenient and does glower Jacobi.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Service is inconvenient and it is a kind of a taxiway. | [
"the Service does glower Jacobi."
] | [
"the Service is inconvenient and it is a kind of a taxiway."
] | the Service is inconvenient and it is a kind of a taxiway. | the Service does glower Jacobi. |
the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{C}{fg} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬{H}{d} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent14: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: ¬{H}{d} -> ({F}{d} & {G}{d}) | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | that the fact that the bourbon is a houseguest but it is not a millivolt does not hold is not incorrect. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | 8 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if the bourbon does conquer blink then that it is both a houseguest and not a millivolt is not true.; sent16 & sent7 -> int4: the redcap is a kind of a taurine that is mesial.; int4 -> int5: the redcap is taurine.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is a taurine.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. | [
"the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve.",
"if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt.",
"that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold."
] | [
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolution.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolving.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a dissolution."
] | There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolution. | the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. |
the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{C}{fg} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬{H}{d} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent14: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: ¬{H}{d} -> ({F}{d} & {G}{d}) | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | that the fact that the bourbon is a houseguest but it is not a millivolt does not hold is not incorrect. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | 8 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if the bourbon does conquer blink then that it is both a houseguest and not a millivolt is not true.; sent16 & sent7 -> int4: the redcap is a kind of a taurine that is mesial.; int4 -> int5: the redcap is taurine.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is a taurine.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. | [
"the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve.",
"if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt.",
"that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold."
] | [
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolution.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolving.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a dissolution."
] | There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolving. | if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. |
the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. | sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{C}{fg} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬{H}{d} sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent14: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent16: ¬{H}{d} -> ({F}{d} & {G}{d}) | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent11 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | that the fact that the bourbon is a houseguest but it is not a millivolt does not hold is not incorrect. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | 8 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if the bourbon does conquer blink then that it is both a houseguest and not a millivolt is not true.; sent16 & sent7 -> int4: the redcap is a kind of a taurine that is mesial.; int4 -> int5: the redcap is taurine.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is a taurine.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the bourbon is both a houseguest and not a millivolt does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. sent2: the fact that the barium does not conquer blink hold. sent3: the fact that something is a houseguest and is not a millivolt is incorrect if it conquers blink. sent4: the fact that that the bourbon does not conquer blink but it is a kind of a millivolt is not wrong does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not dissolve. sent6: the bourbon does conquer blink if the plumbing does conquer blink. sent7: the redcap does not scrape. sent8: that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. sent9: that the plumbing is not a kind of a houseguest and is a kind of a millivolt does not hold. sent10: there is something such that it is a malpractice and is a kind of a dissolve. sent11: the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve. sent12: the fact that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt but it does conquer blink is false. sent13: that the plumbing is a kind of a millivolt but it is not a kind of a houseguest does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it does conquer blink and it is not a millivolt. sent15: if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt. sent16: if the redcap is not a scraping then it is a taurine and it is mesial. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent11 -> int1: the bourbon is a kind of a houseguest.; sent15 & sent8 -> int2: the bourbon is not a millivolt.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a malpractice and it is not a kind of a dissolve. | [
"the bourbon is a houseguest if a malpractice is not a dissolve.",
"if the fact that the plumbing is not a millivolt and it does not conquer blink is not correct then the bourbon is not a millivolt.",
"that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold."
] | [
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolution.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a kind of dissolving.",
"There is a malpractice that is not a dissolution."
] | There is a malpractice that is not a dissolution. | that the plumbing is not a kind of a millivolt and does not conquer blink does not hold. |
the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. | sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent2: {AO} sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{B}) sent5: {D} sent6: ({U} & {CP}) sent7: {A} -> ¬{B} sent8: {CO} sent9: {FO} -> ¬{AO} sent10: {B} -> ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) sent11: ({IF} & {M}) sent12: {EA} sent13: ({BD} & {GL}) sent14: ¬{B} -> {C} sent15: {E} sent16: ¬{FG} -> {FN} sent17: {IG} sent18: (¬{F} & ¬{B}) -> {E} sent19: ({BM} & {FE}) sent20: ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) -> {JJ} sent21: {BU} -> ¬{IO} | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the landler happens. | {JJ} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. | [
"the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold.",
"if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs.",
"the astrologicalness happens."
] | [
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the boardroom happens.",
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the conquering board room happens.",
"If the conquering board room happens, the inedibleness will not occur."
] | The inedibleness doesn't happen if the boardroom happens. | the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. |
the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. | sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent2: {AO} sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{B}) sent5: {D} sent6: ({U} & {CP}) sent7: {A} -> ¬{B} sent8: {CO} sent9: {FO} -> ¬{AO} sent10: {B} -> ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) sent11: ({IF} & {M}) sent12: {EA} sent13: ({BD} & {GL}) sent14: ¬{B} -> {C} sent15: {E} sent16: ¬{FG} -> {FN} sent17: {IG} sent18: (¬{F} & ¬{B}) -> {E} sent19: ({BM} & {FE}) sent20: ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) -> {JJ} sent21: {BU} -> ¬{IO} | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the landler happens. | {JJ} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. | [
"the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold.",
"if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs.",
"the astrologicalness happens."
] | [
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the boardroom happens.",
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the conquering board room happens.",
"If the conquering board room happens, the inedibleness will not occur."
] | The inedibleness doesn't happen if the conquering board room happens. | if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. |
the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. | sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. | ({C} & {D}) | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent2: {AO} sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{B}) sent5: {D} sent6: ({U} & {CP}) sent7: {A} -> ¬{B} sent8: {CO} sent9: {FO} -> ¬{AO} sent10: {B} -> ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) sent11: ({IF} & {M}) sent12: {EA} sent13: ({BD} & {GL}) sent14: ¬{B} -> {C} sent15: {E} sent16: ¬{FG} -> {FN} sent17: {IG} sent18: (¬{F} & ¬{B}) -> {E} sent19: ({BM} & {FE}) sent20: ¬(¬{JJ} & ¬{A}) -> {JJ} sent21: {BU} -> ¬{IO} | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the landler happens. | {JJ} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the conquering boardroom does not occur then the fact that the sedation and the astrologicalness occurs is not right. sent2: that the slapshot happens is not false. sent3: the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold. sent4: that the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur is caused by that the transoceanicness does not occur. sent5: the astrologicalness happens. sent6: the inoffensiveness happens and the virileness occurs. sent7: the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. sent8: the fact that the cephalicness happens is not incorrect. sent9: the slapshot does not occur if the immiscibleness occurs. sent10: if the inedibleness happens that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold. sent11: the chorus and the shinny occurs. sent12: that the diabetic occurs is not false. sent13: both the invite and the supererogation happens. sent14: if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs. sent15: the undueness happens. sent16: that the scattering does not occur is prevented by that the commissioning does not occur. sent17: the suppling occurs. sent18: if the glowering deconstructivism does not occur and the inedibleness does not occur the undueness occurs. sent19: the composing happens and the uplifting happens. sent20: if the fact that the landler does not occur and the conquering boardroom does not occur does not hold then the landler occurs. sent21: the hymenealness does not occur if the shame occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the inedibleness does not occur is not wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the sedation happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the inedibleness does not occur if the conquering boardroom happens. | [
"the fact that the conquering boardroom happens hold.",
"if the inedibleness does not occur then the sedation occurs.",
"the astrologicalness happens."
] | [
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the boardroom happens.",
"The inedibleness doesn't happen if the conquering board room happens.",
"If the conquering board room happens, the inedibleness will not occur."
] | If the conquering board room happens, the inedibleness will not occur. | the astrologicalness happens. |
the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. | sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {A}{aj} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x sent5: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {C}x sent8: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{GN}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent11: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent14: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent15: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a} | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent7 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 6 | [
"sent13 -> int4: the upgrade is disproportionate if the fact that it is casuistic and is a coaching does not hold.; sent4 -> int5: the stationmaster does not tat.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. ; $context$ = sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. | [
"the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching.",
"if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative.",
"if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct."
] | [
"The stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It is true that the stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It's true that the stationmaster isn't proportional."
] | The stationmaster is not proportional. | the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. |
the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. | sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {A}{aj} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x sent5: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {C}x sent8: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{GN}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent11: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent14: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent15: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a} | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent7 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 6 | [
"sent13 -> int4: the upgrade is disproportionate if the fact that it is casuistic and is a coaching does not hold.; sent4 -> int5: the stationmaster does not tat.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. ; $context$ = sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. | [
"the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching.",
"if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative.",
"if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct."
] | [
"The stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It is true that the stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It's true that the stationmaster isn't proportional."
] | It is true that the stationmaster is not proportional. | if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. |
the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. | sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: {C}{a} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} -> {A}{aj} sent4: (x): ¬{F}x sent5: ¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {C}x sent8: {C}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: {B}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{GN}{b} & {IH}{b}) sent11: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent14: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent15: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a} | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent7 -> int2: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative. | (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 6 | [
"sent13 -> int4: the upgrade is disproportionate if the fact that it is casuistic and is a coaching does not hold.; sent4 -> int5: the stationmaster does not tat.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the upgrade is not a kind of a sulfanilamide and is not imitative. ; $context$ = sent1: that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and is imitative is not correct if the stationmaster is imitative. sent2: that the upgrade is a sulfanilamide but it is not imitative does not hold if the stationmaster is imitative. sent3: the actuator is proportionate if the stationmaster is proportionate. sent4: everything does not tat. sent5: that the upgrade is a kind of a sulfanilamide that is not imitative is incorrect. sent6: if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. sent7: if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative. sent8: the fact that the upgrade is not disproportionate and is not imitative is false if the stationmaster is imitative. sent9: the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching. sent10: the fact that the upgrade is not a Apogon and is penicillin-resistant is not correct. sent11: a proportionate thing is a sulfanilamide. sent12: that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. sent13: something is not proportionate if that it is casuistic and it does coach is not correct. sent14: the stationmaster coaches if it is both not imitative and a sulfanilamide. sent15: if the stationmaster is not a sulfanilamide but it is a kind of a coaching then it is imitative. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the stationmaster is non-proportionate thing that coaches.; sent7 -> int2: the stationmaster is imitative if it is not proportionate but a coaching.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stationmaster is imitative.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the stationmaster is not proportionate is true. | [
"the stationmaster is a kind of a coaching.",
"if a non-proportionate thing is a coaching then it is imitative.",
"if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct."
] | [
"The stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It is true that the stationmaster is not proportional.",
"It's true that the stationmaster isn't proportional."
] | It's true that the stationmaster isn't proportional. | if that the stationmaster is imitative is not incorrect the fact that the upgrade is not a sulfanilamide and it is not imitative is not correct. |
that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. | sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. | ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{a}; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent4 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. | [
"the arm does not queue Rubus.",
"if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint.",
"the matai is cytoarchitectural.",
"if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint."
] | [
"The arm is a spray if it does not queue Rubus.",
"If the arm does not queue Rubus, it is a spray.",
"If it does not queue Rubus, the arm is a spray.",
"The arm is a spray if it doesn't queue Rubus."
] | The arm is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. | the arm does not queue Rubus. |
that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. | sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. | ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{a}; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent4 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. | [
"the arm does not queue Rubus.",
"if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint.",
"the matai is cytoarchitectural.",
"if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint."
] | [
"The arm is a spray if it does not queue Rubus.",
"If the arm does not queue Rubus, it is a spray.",
"If it does not queue Rubus, the arm is a spray.",
"The arm is a spray if it doesn't queue Rubus."
] | If the arm does not queue Rubus, it is a spray. | if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. |
that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. | sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. | ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{a}; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent4 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. | [
"the arm does not queue Rubus.",
"if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint.",
"the matai is cytoarchitectural.",
"if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint."
] | [
"The arm is a spray if it does not queue Rubus.",
"If the arm does not queue Rubus, it is a spray.",
"If it does not queue Rubus, the arm is a spray.",
"The arm is a spray if it doesn't queue Rubus."
] | If it does not queue Rubus, the arm is a spray. | the matai is cytoarchitectural. |
that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. | sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. | ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{a}; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent4 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the arm stints but it does not conquer centrum is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the arm does not queue Rubus. sent2: if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint. sent3: the matai does not couple. sent4: if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. sent5: the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. sent6: the matai is cytoarchitectural. sent7: The Rubus does not queue arm. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the arm does not conquer centrum and sprays.; int1 -> int2: the arm does not conquer centrum.; sent2 & sent6 -> int3: the matai is not a coupling and it does not stint.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the arm is a stint.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the arm does not conquer centrum but it is a spray if it does not queue Rubus. | [
"the arm does not queue Rubus.",
"if the matai is cytoarchitectural it is not a coupling and it does not stint.",
"the matai is cytoarchitectural.",
"if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint."
] | [
"The arm is a spray if it does not queue Rubus.",
"If the arm does not queue Rubus, it is a spray.",
"If it does not queue Rubus, the arm is a spray.",
"The arm is a spray if it doesn't queue Rubus."
] | The arm is a spray if it doesn't queue Rubus. | if the matai is both not a coupling and not a stint the arm is a stint. |
the tailgate happens. | sent1: that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens. sent2: the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. sent3: the cart occurs. sent4: that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs. | {D} | sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {R} sent4: {C} -> {D} | [
"sent2 -> int1: the riparianness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the queuing Glaser happens.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the tailgate happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens. sent2: the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. sent3: the cart occurs. sent4: that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the riparianness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the queuing Glaser happens.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. | [
"that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens.",
"that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs."
] | [
"The two things that happen are the riparianness and the conjunctivalness.",
"There are two things that happen, the riparianness and the conjunctivalness."
] | The two things that happen are the riparianness and the conjunctivalness. | that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens. |
the tailgate happens. | sent1: that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens. sent2: the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. sent3: the cart occurs. sent4: that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs. | {D} | sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {R} sent4: {C} -> {D} | [
"sent2 -> int1: the riparianness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the queuing Glaser happens.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {C}; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the tailgate happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens. sent2: the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. sent3: the cart occurs. sent4: that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the riparianness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the queuing Glaser happens.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the riparianness and the conjunctivalness happens. | [
"that the queuing Glaser does not occur is prevented by that the riparianness happens.",
"that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs."
] | [
"The two things that happen are the riparianness and the conjunctivalness.",
"There are two things that happen, the riparianness and the conjunctivalness."
] | There are two things that happen, the riparianness and the conjunctivalness. | that the tailgating occurs is not incorrect if the queuing Glaser occurs. |
the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. | sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. | (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬(¬{BS} & ¬{AK}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent6: ¬(¬{AK} & ¬{ER}) -> {FK} sent7: ¬(¬{IL} & ¬{DS}) -> {Q} sent8: ({A} v ¬{C}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. | ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. | [
"the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both.",
"if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur.",
"if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur."
] | [
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the unhelpfulness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueingness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueing doesn't happen is wrong."
] | The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the unhelpfulness doesn't happen is wrong. | the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. |
the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. | sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. | (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬(¬{BS} & ¬{AK}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent6: ¬(¬{AK} & ¬{ER}) -> {FK} sent7: ¬(¬{IL} & ¬{DS}) -> {Q} sent8: ({A} v ¬{C}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. | ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. | [
"the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both.",
"if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur.",
"if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur."
] | [
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the unhelpfulness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueingness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueing doesn't happen is wrong."
] | The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueingness doesn't happen is wrong. | if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. |
the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. | sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. | (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬(¬{BS} & ¬{AK}) sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent6: ¬(¬{AK} & ¬{ER}) -> {FK} sent7: ¬(¬{IL} & ¬{DS}) -> {Q} sent8: ({A} v ¬{C}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. | ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | 9 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. sent2: the lymphocyticness does not occur if that both the lymphocyticness and the Aeschyleanness happens does not hold. sent3: if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the melding does not occur and the glowering aleurone does not occur is not true. sent5: if the lymphocyticness does not occur then the fact that the tectonicsness occurs and the glowering fission happens is false. sent6: the unionness happens if that the fact that the glowering aleurone does not occur and the inelegantness does not occur is not correct is not false. sent7: the queuing kerosene occurs if the fact that the load does not occur and the intenseness does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both. sent9: if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur. sent10: if the thundershower does not occur the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that that that the lymphocyticness happens and the Aeschyleanness occurs hold does not hold hold if the springing does not occur. sent12: that the racism does not occur but the queuing unhelpfulness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tectonicsness occurs is true.; sent8 & sent9 & sent3 -> int2: the tectonicsness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the fact that the racism does not occur and the queuing unhelpfulness does not occur hold is wrong the tectonicsness happens. | [
"the thundershower occurs or the glowering fission does not occur or both.",
"if the thundershower occurs then the tectonicsness does not occur.",
"if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur."
] | [
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the unhelpfulness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueingness doesn't happen is wrong.",
"The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueing doesn't happen is wrong."
] | The fact that the racism doesn't happen and the queueing doesn't happen is wrong. | if the glowering fission does not occur then the tectonicsness does not occur. |
the grebe is Draconian. | sent1: that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. sent2: the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false. sent3: that the howler glowers Plath is not false. sent4: That the Plath glowers howler is not false. | {B}{c} | sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {AC}{aa} | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not incorporate and it is a creditworthiness is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the grebe is Draconian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. sent2: the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false. sent3: that the howler glowers Plath is not false. sent4: That the Plath glowers howler is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not incorporate and it is a creditworthiness is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. | [
"that the howler glowers Plath is not false.",
"the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false."
] | [
"If the howler glowers Plath, the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness.",
"If the howler glowers Plath, then the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness."
] | If the howler glowers Plath, the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness. | that the howler glowers Plath is not false. |
the grebe is Draconian. | sent1: that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. sent2: the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false. sent3: that the howler glowers Plath is not false. sent4: That the Plath glowers howler is not false. | {B}{c} | sent1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {AC}{aa} | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not incorporate and it is a creditworthiness is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the grebe is Draconian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. sent2: the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false. sent3: that the howler glowers Plath is not false. sent4: That the Plath glowers howler is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not incorporate and it is a creditworthiness is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the micronutrient does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness does not hold if the howler glowers Plath. | [
"that the howler glowers Plath is not false.",
"the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false."
] | [
"If the howler glowers Plath, the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness.",
"If the howler glowers Plath, then the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness."
] | If the howler glowers Plath, then the micronutrient does not incorporate and is not a creditworthiness. | the grebe is Draconian if there exists something such that that it does not incorporate and is a creditworthiness is false. |
that the aerosol is not adamantine and not non-genial is not right. | sent1: the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. sent2: the corral is adamantine. sent3: if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true. sent4: the adjuvant is a godliness. | ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {D}{dt} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent4: {A}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the aerosol is a quack.; sent3 -> int2: that the aerosol is not adamantine but it is genial is not true if it is a quack.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int2: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the aerosol is not adamantine and not non-genial is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. sent2: the corral is adamantine. sent3: if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true. sent4: the adjuvant is a godliness. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the aerosol is a quack.; sent3 -> int2: that the aerosol is not adamantine but it is genial is not true if it is a quack.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. | [
"the adjuvant is a godliness.",
"if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true."
] | [
"If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a quack.",
"If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a fake."
] | If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a quack. | the adjuvant is a godliness. |
that the aerosol is not adamantine and not non-genial is not right. | sent1: the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. sent2: the corral is adamantine. sent3: if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true. sent4: the adjuvant is a godliness. | ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {D}{dt} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) sent4: {A}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the aerosol is a quack.; sent3 -> int2: that the aerosol is not adamantine but it is genial is not true if it is a quack.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int2: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the aerosol is not adamantine and not non-genial is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. sent2: the corral is adamantine. sent3: if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true. sent4: the adjuvant is a godliness. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the aerosol is a quack.; sent3 -> int2: that the aerosol is not adamantine but it is genial is not true if it is a quack.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the aerosol is a quack if the adjuvant is a kind of a godliness hold. | [
"the adjuvant is a godliness.",
"if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true."
] | [
"If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a quack.",
"If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a fake."
] | If the adjuvant is a kind of godliness hold, the aerosol is a fake. | if something is a quack then that it is both non-adamantine and not non-genial is not true. |
that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and is not a kind of a Chilomeniscus does not hold. | sent1: the hangman queues defensiveness. sent2: that something does not queue defensiveness and is a kind of a benzyl is incorrect if it is a kind of a Solenidae. sent3: that something is a kind of non-thermometric thing that conquers Adige is not right if it is not syndetic. sent4: that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and it is a Chilomeniscus does not hold if there is something such that it is a benzyl. sent5: the ropewalk is a kind of a benzyl if the fact that the translation is a Solenidae and is not a kind of a benzyl is not correct. sent6: something is thermometric if the fact that it is not thermometric and it does conquer Adige is false. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a benzyl then the fact that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and is not a Chilomeniscus is not true. sent8: that the translation is both a Solenidae and not a benzyl is wrong if the topminnow does not conquer spectator. sent9: something queues defensiveness but it is not a Chilomeniscus if it is a kind of a benzyl. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is thermometric hold that the needlework conquers spectator and glowers pronator does not hold. sent11: the gravity-assist is not syndetic. sent12: if the fact that the translation does not queue defensiveness but it is a benzyl does not hold it is not a Chilomeniscus. | ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: {C}{aa} sent2: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {I}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {I}x) -> {G}x sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: (x): {G}x -> ¬({E}{d} & {F}{d}) sent11: ¬{H}{e} sent12: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | that the ropewalk is a kind of a Chilomeniscus but it is not a Vermeer does not hold. | ¬({B}{a} & ¬{IA}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the translation is a Solenidae then that it does not queue defensiveness and it is a benzyl is incorrect.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and is not a kind of a Chilomeniscus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the hangman queues defensiveness. sent2: that something does not queue defensiveness and is a kind of a benzyl is incorrect if it is a kind of a Solenidae. sent3: that something is a kind of non-thermometric thing that conquers Adige is not right if it is not syndetic. sent4: that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and it is a Chilomeniscus does not hold if there is something such that it is a benzyl. sent5: the ropewalk is a kind of a benzyl if the fact that the translation is a Solenidae and is not a kind of a benzyl is not correct. sent6: something is thermometric if the fact that it is not thermometric and it does conquer Adige is false. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a benzyl then the fact that the ropewalk does queue defensiveness and is not a Chilomeniscus is not true. sent8: that the translation is both a Solenidae and not a benzyl is wrong if the topminnow does not conquer spectator. sent9: something queues defensiveness but it is not a Chilomeniscus if it is a kind of a benzyl. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is thermometric hold that the needlework conquers spectator and glowers pronator does not hold. sent11: the gravity-assist is not syndetic. sent12: if the fact that the translation does not queue defensiveness but it is a benzyl does not hold it is not a Chilomeniscus. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something queues defensiveness but it is not a Chilomeniscus if it is a kind of a benzyl. | [
"the gravity-assist is not syndetic."
] | [
"something queues defensiveness but it is not a Chilomeniscus if it is a kind of a benzyl."
] | something queues defensiveness but it is not a Chilomeniscus if it is a kind of a benzyl. | the gravity-assist is not syndetic. |
the countercharge does not occur. | sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. | ¬{D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> {B} sent2: ({FD} & {JH}) -> ¬{HG} sent3: ¬({F} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {E} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{E} -> ¬({F} & {C}) sent8: ({JK} & {BK}) sent9: ({C} & {E}) sent10: {A} -> {D} sent11: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent9 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the countercharge happens. | {D} | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the countercharge does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. | [
"the topping does not occur.",
"the carpal and the undulation happens.",
"that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs."
] | [
"The topped doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur.",
"The topped doesn't occur so that the vasomotorness occurs.",
"The top doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur."
] | The topped doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur. | the topping does not occur. |
the countercharge does not occur. | sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. | ¬{D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> {B} sent2: ({FD} & {JH}) -> ¬{HG} sent3: ¬({F} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {E} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{E} -> ¬({F} & {C}) sent8: ({JK} & {BK}) sent9: ({C} & {E}) sent10: {A} -> {D} sent11: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent9 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the countercharge happens. | {D} | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the countercharge does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. | [
"the topping does not occur.",
"the carpal and the undulation happens.",
"that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs."
] | [
"The topped doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur.",
"The topped doesn't occur so that the vasomotorness occurs.",
"The top doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur."
] | The topped doesn't occur so that the vasomotorness occurs. | the carpal and the undulation happens. |
the countercharge does not occur. | sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. | ¬{D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> {B} sent2: ({FD} & {JH}) -> ¬{HG} sent3: ¬({F} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent4: {E} sent5: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{E} -> ¬({F} & {C}) sent8: ({JK} & {BK}) sent9: ({C} & {E}) sent10: {A} -> {D} sent11: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent9 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the countercharge happens. | {D} | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the countercharge does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. sent2: that the picket happens and the disembowelment happens yields that the glowering have does not occur. sent3: if that the ideologicalness happens and the carpal occurs is not true the carpal does not occur. sent4: the undulation occurs. sent5: that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. sent6: the topping does not occur. sent7: the fact that both the ideologicalness and the carpal happens does not hold if the undulation does not occur. sent8: the concessiveness and the glowering illegitimacy occurs. sent9: the carpal and the undulation happens. sent10: that the topping happens results in that the countercharge happens. sent11: if the ideologicalness does not occur then the countercharge happens and the undulation occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the vasomotorness happens.; sent9 -> int2: the carpalness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the vasomotorness and the carpalness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the vasomotorness occurs is triggered by that the topped does not occur. | [
"the topping does not occur.",
"the carpal and the undulation happens.",
"that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs."
] | [
"The topped doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur.",
"The topped doesn't occur so that the vasomotorness occurs.",
"The top doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur."
] | The top doesn't occur and that causes the vasomotorness to occur. | that the countercharge does not occur is brought about by that both the vasomotorness and the carpal occurs. |
the illustrator is a kind of a behest. | sent1: the compromiser is not a Hmong and it is not a wild. sent2: the illustrator is not a kind of a throw-weight. sent3: the fact that something is not a brave is true if it does not queue Alisma and is a kind of a wild. sent4: if the daydreamer is a kind of a brave then the illustrator is a kind of a behest. sent5: the daydreamer does not queue Alisma if the compromiser is non-Hmong thing that is a kind of a wild. sent6: the fact that the daydreamer queues Alisma hold if it is not a throw-weight. sent7: the locknut is a Hmong. sent8: the daydreamer does queue Alisma if it is not a kind of a Hmong and/or it is not a throw-weight. sent9: if the compromiser is not a brave then the fact that the daydreamer is a throw-weight that is a behest is not correct. sent10: if the compromiser is a kind of non-Hmong thing that is non-wild the daydreamer does not queue Alisma. sent11: if the compromiser is not a kind of a Hmong or does not withhold or both then it is not a Hmong. sent12: the illustrator does not queue Alisma. sent13: the daydreamer either is not a brave or is a throw-weight or both. sent14: if the illustrator is a throw-weight the daydreamer is a behest. sent15: the compromiser is non-wild. sent16: the illustrator is not a Hmong. sent17: the chloride is non-Hmong. sent18: if that the illustrator is a wild is true the compromiser is a behest. | {D}{b} | sent1: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): (¬{C}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {A}{a} -> {D}{b} sent5: (¬{F}{c} & {E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{a} sent7: {F}{is} sent8: (¬{F}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent10: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent11: (¬{F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent12: ¬{C}{b} sent13: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {B}{b} -> {D}{a} sent15: ¬{E}{c} sent16: ¬{F}{b} sent17: ¬{F}{hg} sent18: {E}{b} -> {D}{c} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the daydreamer is not a kind of a brave.; assump1 -> int1: either the daydreamer is not a brave or it is not a throw-weight or both.; sent10 & sent1 -> int2: the daydreamer does not queue Alisma.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent10 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 | the illustrator is not a kind of a behest. | ¬{D}{b} | 6 | [
"sent3 -> int3: if the compromiser does not queue Alisma but it is a wild then it is not a kind of a brave.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the illustrator is a kind of a behest. ; $context$ = sent1: the compromiser is not a Hmong and it is not a wild. sent2: the illustrator is not a kind of a throw-weight. sent3: the fact that something is not a brave is true if it does not queue Alisma and is a kind of a wild. sent4: if the daydreamer is a kind of a brave then the illustrator is a kind of a behest. sent5: the daydreamer does not queue Alisma if the compromiser is non-Hmong thing that is a kind of a wild. sent6: the fact that the daydreamer queues Alisma hold if it is not a throw-weight. sent7: the locknut is a Hmong. sent8: the daydreamer does queue Alisma if it is not a kind of a Hmong and/or it is not a throw-weight. sent9: if the compromiser is not a brave then the fact that the daydreamer is a throw-weight that is a behest is not correct. sent10: if the compromiser is a kind of non-Hmong thing that is non-wild the daydreamer does not queue Alisma. sent11: if the compromiser is not a kind of a Hmong or does not withhold or both then it is not a Hmong. sent12: the illustrator does not queue Alisma. sent13: the daydreamer either is not a brave or is a throw-weight or both. sent14: if the illustrator is a throw-weight the daydreamer is a behest. sent15: the compromiser is non-wild. sent16: the illustrator is not a Hmong. sent17: the chloride is non-Hmong. sent18: if that the illustrator is a wild is true the compromiser is a behest. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the compromiser is a kind of non-Hmong thing that is non-wild the daydreamer does not queue Alisma. | [
"the compromiser is not a Hmong and it is not a wild."
] | [
"if the compromiser is a kind of non-Hmong thing that is non-wild the daydreamer does not queue Alisma."
] | if the compromiser is a kind of non-Hmong thing that is non-wild the daydreamer does not queue Alisma. | the compromiser is not a Hmong and it is not a wild. |
the headman is not a Callisaurus. | sent1: the headman is not a star-glory and/or it is not a kind of a bureaucracy. sent2: either the headman is not a inelegance or it is not a star-glory or both. sent3: if the headman is not a Callisaurus it is not a window. sent4: the headman is not a extraversion. sent5: the bell is not a Callisaurus. sent6: the vestryman is not a Achoerodus if either it is not a kind of a C-clamp or it is not a inelegance or both. sent7: if the headman does not glower mold then that it is not a Callisaurus is right. sent8: that something does not glower rodent if it is not a lolly is right. sent9: something is a Callisaurus and it does tint if it does not grass. sent10: either the headman overhauls or it is not a kea or both. sent11: something is not a charcuterie if that it does not powder is right. sent12: if the bell is not a kind of a inelegance it is not retroactive. sent13: the pinpoint is not cybernetic if either it is not a kind of a clonidine or it is not a kind of a star-glory or both. sent14: something is not a Callisaurus if it is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (¬{AB}{aa} v ¬{JJ}{aa}) sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{CA}{aa} sent4: ¬{EE}{aa} sent5: ¬{B}{iu} sent6: (¬{EL}{ff} v ¬{AA}{ff}) -> ¬{HS}{ff} sent7: ¬{AH}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬{BB}x -> ¬{HR}x sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent10: ({CU}{aa} v ¬{CN}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{GR}x -> ¬{BJ}x sent12: ¬{AA}{iu} -> ¬{BH}{iu} sent13: (¬{CP}{d} v ¬{AB}{d}) -> ¬{FI}{d} sent14: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent14 -> int1: if the headman is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory that it is not a Callisaurus is not wrong.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent14 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the headman is a Callisaurus. | {B}{aa} | 5 | [
"sent9 -> int2: the fact that if the headman does not grass the headman is a kind of a Callisaurus and it does tint hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the headman is not a Callisaurus. ; $context$ = sent1: the headman is not a star-glory and/or it is not a kind of a bureaucracy. sent2: either the headman is not a inelegance or it is not a star-glory or both. sent3: if the headman is not a Callisaurus it is not a window. sent4: the headman is not a extraversion. sent5: the bell is not a Callisaurus. sent6: the vestryman is not a Achoerodus if either it is not a kind of a C-clamp or it is not a inelegance or both. sent7: if the headman does not glower mold then that it is not a Callisaurus is right. sent8: that something does not glower rodent if it is not a lolly is right. sent9: something is a Callisaurus and it does tint if it does not grass. sent10: either the headman overhauls or it is not a kea or both. sent11: something is not a charcuterie if that it does not powder is right. sent12: if the bell is not a kind of a inelegance it is not retroactive. sent13: the pinpoint is not cybernetic if either it is not a kind of a clonidine or it is not a kind of a star-glory or both. sent14: something is not a Callisaurus if it is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory. ; $proof$ = | sent14 -> int1: if the headman is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory that it is not a Callisaurus is not wrong.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not a Callisaurus if it is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory. | [
"either the headman is not a inelegance or it is not a star-glory or both."
] | [
"something is not a Callisaurus if it is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory."
] | something is not a Callisaurus if it is not a inelegance and/or it is not a star-glory. | either the headman is not a inelegance or it is not a star-glory or both. |
the cantaloup is not a kind of a dahl. | sent1: that if the pinko is not a heroine then the fact that the cantaloup is both not a dahl and a twinge does not hold is correct. sent2: the fact that the chowder is econometric and it is a skirt is wrong. sent3: the marathoner does twinge. sent4: something is a dahl if it is a kind of a twinge. sent5: if something glowers Rubus the fact that it is a pleasance is true. sent6: if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl. sent7: that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. sent8: the marathoner is a heroine and/or it is a twinge if it is not a kind of a Argive. sent9: the fact that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is not right if the marathoner does not twinge. sent10: if the chowder is not non-econometric the cantaloup is not a dahl. | ¬{B}{c} | sent1: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent2: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {IC}{b}) sent10: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the chowder is not econometric and is a skirt is not right.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the chowder is non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is false. | ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {IC}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent5 -> int2: the grizzly is a pleasance if it glowers Rubus.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cantaloup is not a kind of a dahl. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the pinko is not a heroine then the fact that the cantaloup is both not a dahl and a twinge does not hold is correct. sent2: the fact that the chowder is econometric and it is a skirt is wrong. sent3: the marathoner does twinge. sent4: something is a dahl if it is a kind of a twinge. sent5: if something glowers Rubus the fact that it is a pleasance is true. sent6: if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl. sent7: that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. sent8: the marathoner is a heroine and/or it is a twinge if it is not a kind of a Argive. sent9: the fact that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is not right if the marathoner does not twinge. sent10: if the chowder is not non-econometric the cantaloup is not a dahl. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the chowder is not econometric and is a skirt is not right.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. | [
"the marathoner does twinge.",
"if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl."
] | [
"The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges.",
"The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges, because the chowder is a non-econometric thing."
] | The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. | the marathoner does twinge. |
the cantaloup is not a kind of a dahl. | sent1: that if the pinko is not a heroine then the fact that the cantaloup is both not a dahl and a twinge does not hold is correct. sent2: the fact that the chowder is econometric and it is a skirt is wrong. sent3: the marathoner does twinge. sent4: something is a dahl if it is a kind of a twinge. sent5: if something glowers Rubus the fact that it is a pleasance is true. sent6: if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl. sent7: that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. sent8: the marathoner is a heroine and/or it is a twinge if it is not a kind of a Argive. sent9: the fact that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is not right if the marathoner does not twinge. sent10: if the chowder is not non-econometric the cantaloup is not a dahl. | ¬{B}{c} | sent1: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) sent2: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent8: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {IC}{b}) sent10: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the chowder is not econometric and is a skirt is not right.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the chowder is non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is false. | ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {IC}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent5 -> int2: the grizzly is a pleasance if it glowers Rubus.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cantaloup is not a kind of a dahl. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the pinko is not a heroine then the fact that the cantaloup is both not a dahl and a twinge does not hold is correct. sent2: the fact that the chowder is econometric and it is a skirt is wrong. sent3: the marathoner does twinge. sent4: something is a dahl if it is a kind of a twinge. sent5: if something glowers Rubus the fact that it is a pleasance is true. sent6: if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl. sent7: that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. sent8: the marathoner is a heroine and/or it is a twinge if it is not a kind of a Argive. sent9: the fact that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that does queue dazzling is not right if the marathoner does not twinge. sent10: if the chowder is not non-econometric the cantaloup is not a dahl. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the chowder is not econometric and is a skirt is not right.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the chowder is a kind of non-econometric thing that is a skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges. | [
"the marathoner does twinge.",
"if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl."
] | [
"The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges.",
"The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges, because the chowder is a non-econometric thing."
] | The skirt is not right if the marathoner twinges, because the chowder is a non-econometric thing. | if the fact that the chowder is not econometric and does skirt is false then the cantaloup is not a dahl. |
the fact that the sexualness does not occur is not incorrect. | sent1: the presidency but not the desiring occurs. sent2: that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. sent3: that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness. sent4: the sexualness and the unexchangeableness happens if the lacustrineness does not occur. | ¬{C} | sent1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the lacustrineness happens.; int1 -> int2: either the lacustrineness occurs or the unexchangeableness does not occur or both.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v ¬{A}); sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | the sexualness occurs. | {C} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the sexualness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the presidency but not the desiring occurs. sent2: that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. sent3: that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness. sent4: the sexualness and the unexchangeableness happens if the lacustrineness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the lacustrineness happens.; int1 -> int2: either the lacustrineness occurs or the unexchangeableness does not occur or both.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. | [
"the presidency but not the desiring occurs.",
"that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness."
] | [
"The desire does not occur when the presidency happens.",
"The desire does not occur because the presidency happens."
] | The desire does not occur when the presidency happens. | the presidency but not the desiring occurs. |
the fact that the sexualness does not occur is not incorrect. | sent1: the presidency but not the desiring occurs. sent2: that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. sent3: that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness. sent4: the sexualness and the unexchangeableness happens if the lacustrineness does not occur. | ¬{C} | sent1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the lacustrineness happens.; int1 -> int2: either the lacustrineness occurs or the unexchangeableness does not occur or both.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v ¬{A}); sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | the sexualness occurs. | {C} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the sexualness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the presidency but not the desiring occurs. sent2: that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. sent3: that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness. sent4: the sexualness and the unexchangeableness happens if the lacustrineness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the lacustrineness happens.; int1 -> int2: either the lacustrineness occurs or the unexchangeableness does not occur or both.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the lacustrineness occurs is caused by that the presidency happens but the desire does not occur. | [
"the presidency but not the desiring occurs.",
"that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness."
] | [
"The desire does not occur when the presidency happens.",
"The desire does not occur because the presidency happens."
] | The desire does not occur because the presidency happens. | that the sexualness occurs is prevented by the lacustrineness and/or the convertibleness. |
the pluralist is pyrolytic. | sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. | {D}{a} | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}{fe} sent5: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: ¬({H}{b} v ¬{G}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {C}{a} sent12: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ({A}{hi} & {DP}{hi}) -> ¬{JI}{hi} sent14: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the runway is not trophic. | ¬{C}{fe} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pluralist is pyrolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. | [
"the pluralist is a sedative.",
"there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold.",
"if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic.",
"if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic."
] | [
"If it is a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If it's a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If the pluralist is a sedative, it is a pitch.",
"It's a pitch if it's a sedative."
] | If it is a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch. | the pluralist is a sedative. |
the pluralist is pyrolytic. | sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. | {D}{a} | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}{fe} sent5: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: ¬({H}{b} v ¬{G}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {C}{a} sent12: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ({A}{hi} & {DP}{hi}) -> ¬{JI}{hi} sent14: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the runway is not trophic. | ¬{C}{fe} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pluralist is pyrolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. | [
"the pluralist is a sedative.",
"there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold.",
"if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic.",
"if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic."
] | [
"If it is a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If it's a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If the pluralist is a sedative, it is a pitch.",
"It's a pitch if it's a sedative."
] | If it's a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch. | there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. |
the pluralist is pyrolytic. | sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. | {D}{a} | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}{fe} sent5: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: ¬({H}{b} v ¬{G}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {C}{a} sent12: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ({A}{hi} & {DP}{hi}) -> ¬{JI}{hi} sent14: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the runway is not trophic. | ¬{C}{fe} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pluralist is pyrolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. | [
"the pluralist is a sedative.",
"there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold.",
"if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic.",
"if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic."
] | [
"If it is a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If it's a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If the pluralist is a sedative, it is a pitch.",
"It's a pitch if it's a sedative."
] | If the pluralist is a sedative, it is a pitch. | if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. |
the pluralist is pyrolytic. | sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. | {D}{a} | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}{fe} sent5: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: ¬({H}{b} v ¬{G}{b}) -> {F}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & {C}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {C}{a} sent12: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: ({A}{hi} & {DP}{hi}) -> ¬{JI}{hi} sent14: (Ex): (¬{F}x & ¬{C}x) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); sent5 -> int4: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the runway is not trophic. | ¬{C}{fe} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pluralist is pyrolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. sent2: there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent3: the pluralist is a sedative. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is trophic and is a sedative is incorrect that the runway is not trophic is not false. sent5: if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. sent6: there is something such that that it is humanist and it is not trophic does not hold. sent7: if the fact that either the groom is centromeric or it is not a Humperdinck or both is not right then it is a kind of a humanist. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a humanist and trophic is not correct. sent9: if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic. sent10: the pluralist is not a sedative but pyrolytic if the groom does not pitch. sent11: the pluralist is trophic if there is something such that it is trophic. sent12: that the groom is not a phalarope and it is not pyrolytic is not true if it is humanist. sent13: the Psalter is not a kind of a bacteriochlorophyll if it is a sedative and does glower Irelander. sent14: there is something such that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the pluralist is a pitch.; sent2 & sent9 -> int2: the pluralist is trophic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pluralist is a kind of a pitch that is trophic.; sent5 -> int4: the pluralist is not pyrolytic if it is a pitch and it is trophic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the pluralist is a pitch if it is a sedative. | [
"the pluralist is a sedative.",
"there is something such that that it is not a humanist and it is not trophic does not hold.",
"if there is something such that that it is both non-humanist and non-trophic is not true the pluralist is non-trophic.",
"if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic."
] | [
"If it is a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If it's a sedative, the pluralist is a pitch.",
"If the pluralist is a sedative, it is a pitch.",
"It's a pitch if it's a sedative."
] | It's a pitch if it's a sedative. | if a pitch is trophic then it is not pyrolytic. |
there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a malpractice or does glower Assumption or both does not hold. | sent1: there is something such that it is not sulcate. sent2: there exists something such that it is sulcate. | (Ex): ¬({B}x v {C}x) | sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent2: (Ex): {A}x | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a malpractice or does glower Assumption or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not sulcate. sent2: there exists something such that it is sulcate. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is sulcate. | [
"there is something such that it is not sulcate."
] | [
"there exists something such that it is sulcate."
] | there exists something such that it is sulcate. | there is something such that it is not sulcate. |
the map-reader is a kind of a scout. | sent1: there is something such that it is an idle. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout. sent3: the supermarket is not a Tarheel. sent4: the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scout and/or is a Tarheel does not hold. sent6: the stateroom is a kind of an antipathy. | {B}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {AA}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x v {A}x) sent6: {AB}{gk} | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the entomion is not idle or is not an antipathy or both does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an idle and/or it is not an antipathy is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the map-reader is a kind of a scout. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is an idle. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout. sent3: the supermarket is not a Tarheel. sent4: the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scout and/or is a Tarheel does not hold. sent6: the stateroom is a kind of an antipathy. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the entomion is not idle or is not an antipathy or both does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an idle and/or it is not an antipathy is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. | [
"the supermarket is not a Tarheel.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout."
] | [
"The fact that the supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false.",
"The fact that a supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false."
] | The fact that the supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false. | the supermarket is not a Tarheel. |
the map-reader is a kind of a scout. | sent1: there is something such that it is an idle. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout. sent3: the supermarket is not a Tarheel. sent4: the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scout and/or is a Tarheel does not hold. sent6: the stateroom is a kind of an antipathy. | {B}{c} | sent1: (Ex): {AA}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x v {A}x) sent6: {AB}{gk} | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the entomion is not idle or is not an antipathy or both does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an idle and/or it is not an antipathy is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the map-reader is a kind of a scout. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is an idle. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout. sent3: the supermarket is not a Tarheel. sent4: the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not a scout and/or is a Tarheel does not hold. sent6: the stateroom is a kind of an antipathy. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the entomion is not idle or is not an antipathy or both does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an idle and/or it is not an antipathy is incorrect.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that if the supermarket is not a kind of a Tarheel the fact that the entomion is either not an idle or not an antipathy or both is wrong is not false. | [
"the supermarket is not a Tarheel.",
"if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout."
] | [
"The fact that the supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false.",
"The fact that a supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false."
] | The fact that a supermarket is not a kind of Tarheel is not false. | if there exists something such that the fact that either it is not idle or it is not an antipathy or both is not correct the map-reader does scout. |
the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. | sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. | {D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬{E} sent4: ¬{E} -> {C} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬(¬{B} & {EG}) -> ¬{EG} sent7: (¬{B} & {C}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{CE} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & {C}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the conquering chumminess does not occur. | ¬{D} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. | [
"the naiveness does not occur.",
"if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right.",
"the avuncularness does not occur.",
"that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur."
] | [
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness doesn't occur if the naiveness doesn't occur.",
"The youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness doesn't occur."
] | Youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur. | the naiveness does not occur. |
the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. | sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. | {D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬{E} sent4: ¬{E} -> {C} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬(¬{B} & {EG}) -> ¬{EG} sent7: (¬{B} & {C}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{CE} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & {C}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the conquering chumminess does not occur. | ¬{D} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. | [
"the naiveness does not occur.",
"if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right.",
"the avuncularness does not occur.",
"that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur."
] | [
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness doesn't occur if the naiveness doesn't occur.",
"The youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness doesn't occur."
] | Youngness doesn't occur if the naiveness doesn't occur. | if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. |
the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. | sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. | {D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬{E} sent4: ¬{E} -> {C} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬(¬{B} & {EG}) -> ¬{EG} sent7: (¬{B} & {C}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{CE} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & {C}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the conquering chumminess does not occur. | ¬{D} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. | [
"the naiveness does not occur.",
"if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right.",
"the avuncularness does not occur.",
"that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur."
] | [
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness doesn't occur if the naiveness doesn't occur.",
"The youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness doesn't occur."
] | The youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur. | the avuncularness does not occur. |
the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. | sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. | {D} | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: ¬{E} sent4: ¬{E} -> {C} sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬(¬{B} & {EG}) -> ¬{EG} sent7: (¬{B} & {C}) -> {D} sent8: ¬{CE} | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{B} & {C}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the conquering chumminess does not occur. | ¬{D} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the conquering chumminess happens is right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. sent2: the naiveness does not occur. sent3: the avuncularness does not occur. sent4: if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right. sent5: the fact that the naiveness does not occur and the youngness happens does not hold if the queuing incredulity does not occur. sent6: the fact that the noncollapsibleness does not occur if that the non-youngness and the noncollapsibleness happens is false is correct. sent7: that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. sent8: the business does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the youngness does not occur.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the queuing incredulity occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the non-youngness and the queuing incredulity happens.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the naiveness does not occur leads to that the youngness does not occur. | [
"the naiveness does not occur.",
"if the avuncularness does not occur then the fact that that the queuing incredulity does not occur is correct is not right.",
"the avuncularness does not occur.",
"that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur."
] | [
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness doesn't occur if the naiveness doesn't occur.",
"The youngness does not occur if the naiveness does not occur.",
"Youngness does not occur if the naiveness doesn't occur."
] | Youngness does not occur if the naiveness doesn't occur. | that the young does not occur and the queuing incredulity occurs prevents that the conquering chumminess does not occur. |
the turmeric outwears and it glowers documentation. | sent1: the bradawl does queue millionaire if there is something such that the fact that it is not marly and it does not queue millionaire is false. sent2: if that the bradawl queues millionaire is right then that the preserve is non-pelvic thing that does not ogle is not true. sent3: that the turmeric conquers prurience is not false. sent4: the shirtlifter is not a pharmacopoeia if the wagon is not a barley and does glower Lovelace. sent5: something glowers Lovelace if it is a conqueror. sent6: the fact that the turmeric is a pharmacopoeia hold. sent7: the turmeric does not conquer zeppelin if that the shirtlifter conquer zeppelin and it is a kind of a spiritual does not hold. sent8: the chip outwears. sent9: if something that does not fellate personifies it is not a kind of a barley. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-marly thing that does not queue millionaire is not true. sent11: the sodium does not conquer zeppelin. sent12: the turmeric does glower documentation and does not conquer zeppelin. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-pelvic thing that does not ogle does not hold then the wagon is a kind of a conqueror. sent14: the turmeric is a kind of a roomful. sent15: the turmeric does not conquer zeppelin. sent16: everything does not fellate and it does personify. sent17: the turmeric does outwear and it is a pharmacopoeia. sent18: the trader does outwear. sent19: that something does conquer zeppelin and is a kind of a spiritual does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a pharmacopoeia is true. | ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & ¬{K}x) -> {K}{e} sent2: {K}{e} -> ¬(¬{I}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent3: {BQ}{a} sent4: (¬{G}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): {H}x -> {F}x sent6: {D}{a} sent7: ¬({B}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: {C}{he} sent9: (x): (¬{N}x & {L}x) -> ¬{G}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{M}x & ¬{K}x) sent11: ¬{B}{ib} sent12: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}{c} sent14: {BC}{a} sent15: ¬{B}{a} sent16: (x): (¬{N}x & {L}x) sent17: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent18: {C}{ab} sent19: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({B}x & {E}x) | [
"sent12 -> int1: the turmeric glowers documentation.; sent17 -> int2: the turmeric outwears.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent12 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent17 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the fact that the turmeric does outwear and it does glower documentation does not hold. | ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) | 10 | [
"sent19 -> int3: if the shirtlifter is not a kind of a pharmacopoeia that it does conquer zeppelin and it is a spiritual is incorrect.; sent9 -> int4: if the foster-daughter does not fellate and does personify then it is not a barley.; sent16 -> int5: the foster-daughter does not fellate and personifies.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the foster-daughter is not a barley.; int6 -> int7: everything is not a kind of a barley.; int7 -> int8: the wagon is not a barley.; sent10 & sent1 -> int9: the bradawl does queue millionaire.; sent2 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the preserve is not pelvic and does not ogle does not hold.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is non-pelvic thing that does not ogle is not right.; int11 & sent13 -> int12: the wagon is a conqueror.; sent5 -> int13: if the wagon is a kind of a conqueror it glowers Lovelace.; int12 & int13 -> int14: that the wagon glowers Lovelace hold.; int8 & int14 -> int15: the wagon is not a kind of a barley but it does glower Lovelace.; sent4 & int15 -> int16: the shirtlifter is not a kind of a pharmacopoeia.; int3 & int16 -> int17: the fact that the shirtlifter does conquer zeppelin and it is a spiritual is not right.; sent7 & int17 -> int18: the turmeric does not conquer zeppelin.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the turmeric outwears and it glowers documentation. ; $context$ = sent1: the bradawl does queue millionaire if there is something such that the fact that it is not marly and it does not queue millionaire is false. sent2: if that the bradawl queues millionaire is right then that the preserve is non-pelvic thing that does not ogle is not true. sent3: that the turmeric conquers prurience is not false. sent4: the shirtlifter is not a pharmacopoeia if the wagon is not a barley and does glower Lovelace. sent5: something glowers Lovelace if it is a conqueror. sent6: the fact that the turmeric is a pharmacopoeia hold. sent7: the turmeric does not conquer zeppelin if that the shirtlifter conquer zeppelin and it is a kind of a spiritual does not hold. sent8: the chip outwears. sent9: if something that does not fellate personifies it is not a kind of a barley. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-marly thing that does not queue millionaire is not true. sent11: the sodium does not conquer zeppelin. sent12: the turmeric does glower documentation and does not conquer zeppelin. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-pelvic thing that does not ogle does not hold then the wagon is a kind of a conqueror. sent14: the turmeric is a kind of a roomful. sent15: the turmeric does not conquer zeppelin. sent16: everything does not fellate and it does personify. sent17: the turmeric does outwear and it is a pharmacopoeia. sent18: the trader does outwear. sent19: that something does conquer zeppelin and is a kind of a spiritual does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of a pharmacopoeia is true. ; $proof$ = | sent12 -> int1: the turmeric glowers documentation.; sent17 -> int2: the turmeric outwears.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the turmeric does glower documentation and does not conquer zeppelin. | [
"the turmeric does outwear and it is a pharmacopoeia."
] | [
"the turmeric does glower documentation and does not conquer zeppelin."
] | the turmeric does glower documentation and does not conquer zeppelin. | the turmeric does outwear and it is a pharmacopoeia. |
the gunsmith is not a graphics. | sent1: if the gunsmith is a lupus then the short-stop is graphics. sent2: that the fact that the short-stop is both not urogenital and a lupus is not right is true. sent3: if the gunsmith is urogenital then the short-stop is a kind of a graphics. sent4: if the fact that something is not a augite and it is not a graphics is wrong then it is urogenital. sent5: if something is not a downrightness then the fact that it is a kind of a augite and it is a kind of a graphics does not hold. sent6: there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. sent7: the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite. sent8: something is a lupus if that it is not urogenital and it is not a graphics is incorrect. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not urogenital and it is a lupus. sent10: there is nothing such that it is urogenital and it is not a lupus. sent11: that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct. sent12: the millwheel is a kind of a lupus. sent13: the gunsmith is urogenital if the fact that it is not a graphics and is not a lupus is wrong. sent14: the fact that that the short-stop is a kind of urogenital thing that is not a lupus is false is not wrong. | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: {AB}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AA}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AB}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{d} sent13: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{a} sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that the short-stop is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if that the short-stop is not urogenital and not a lupus is incorrect then it is a augite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the short-stop is a kind of a augite.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent11 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{aa}; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the gunsmith is not a graphics. | ¬{B}{a} | 5 | [
"sent5 -> int4: the fact that the llano is a augite and it is a graphics is incorrect if it is not a kind of a downrightness.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the gunsmith is not a graphics. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gunsmith is a lupus then the short-stop is graphics. sent2: that the fact that the short-stop is both not urogenital and a lupus is not right is true. sent3: if the gunsmith is urogenital then the short-stop is a kind of a graphics. sent4: if the fact that something is not a augite and it is not a graphics is wrong then it is urogenital. sent5: if something is not a downrightness then the fact that it is a kind of a augite and it is a kind of a graphics does not hold. sent6: there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. sent7: the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite. sent8: something is a lupus if that it is not urogenital and it is not a graphics is incorrect. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not urogenital and it is a lupus. sent10: there is nothing such that it is urogenital and it is not a lupus. sent11: that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct. sent12: the millwheel is a kind of a lupus. sent13: the gunsmith is urogenital if the fact that it is not a graphics and is not a lupus is wrong. sent14: the fact that that the short-stop is a kind of urogenital thing that is not a lupus is false is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: the fact that the short-stop is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if that the short-stop is not urogenital and not a lupus is incorrect then it is a augite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the short-stop is a kind of a augite.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. | [
"that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct.",
"the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite."
] | [
"There is nothing that is not Urogenital.",
"There is nothing else that is not Urogenital."
] | There is nothing that is not Urogenital. | that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct. |
the gunsmith is not a graphics. | sent1: if the gunsmith is a lupus then the short-stop is graphics. sent2: that the fact that the short-stop is both not urogenital and a lupus is not right is true. sent3: if the gunsmith is urogenital then the short-stop is a kind of a graphics. sent4: if the fact that something is not a augite and it is not a graphics is wrong then it is urogenital. sent5: if something is not a downrightness then the fact that it is a kind of a augite and it is a kind of a graphics does not hold. sent6: there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. sent7: the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite. sent8: something is a lupus if that it is not urogenital and it is not a graphics is incorrect. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not urogenital and it is a lupus. sent10: there is nothing such that it is urogenital and it is not a lupus. sent11: that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct. sent12: the millwheel is a kind of a lupus. sent13: the gunsmith is urogenital if the fact that it is not a graphics and is not a lupus is wrong. sent14: the fact that that the short-stop is a kind of urogenital thing that is not a lupus is false is not wrong. | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: {AB}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AA}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {A}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AB}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent12: {AB}{d} sent13: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{a} sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that the short-stop is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if that the short-stop is not urogenital and not a lupus is incorrect then it is a augite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the short-stop is a kind of a augite.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent11 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{aa}; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the gunsmith is not a graphics. | ¬{B}{a} | 5 | [
"sent5 -> int4: the fact that the llano is a augite and it is a graphics is incorrect if it is not a kind of a downrightness.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the gunsmith is not a graphics. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gunsmith is a lupus then the short-stop is graphics. sent2: that the fact that the short-stop is both not urogenital and a lupus is not right is true. sent3: if the gunsmith is urogenital then the short-stop is a kind of a graphics. sent4: if the fact that something is not a augite and it is not a graphics is wrong then it is urogenital. sent5: if something is not a downrightness then the fact that it is a kind of a augite and it is a kind of a graphics does not hold. sent6: there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. sent7: the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite. sent8: something is a lupus if that it is not urogenital and it is not a graphics is incorrect. sent9: there is nothing such that it is not urogenital and it is a lupus. sent10: there is nothing such that it is urogenital and it is not a lupus. sent11: that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct. sent12: the millwheel is a kind of a lupus. sent13: the gunsmith is urogenital if the fact that it is not a graphics and is not a lupus is wrong. sent14: the fact that that the short-stop is a kind of urogenital thing that is not a lupus is false is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: the fact that the short-stop is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if that the short-stop is not urogenital and not a lupus is incorrect then it is a augite.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the short-stop is a kind of a augite.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is nothing that is not urogenital and is not a lupus. | [
"that something is a kind of a augite if the fact that it is not urogenital and it is not a lupus is not right is correct.",
"the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite."
] | [
"There is nothing that is not Urogenital.",
"There is nothing else that is not Urogenital."
] | There is nothing else that is not Urogenital. | the gunsmith is a kind of a graphics if the short-stop is a kind of a augite. |
something does dub and it is a Phascogale. | sent1: if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. sent2: something queues invitation. sent3: there is something such that it queues Cumberland. sent4: the hornblende is a sharpshooter. sent5: if the ecologist does not queue invitation then the Senhor is a kind of a dub and it is a kind of a Phascogale. sent6: the hornblende is Zoroastrian and queues shoal. sent7: something does queue invitation if it does dub. sent8: the etodolac is a fibrinopeptide. sent9: if something detonates it is a Phascogale. sent10: the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous. sent11: there are polyvalent and curious things. sent12: if something is a Phascogale it queues headmistress. sent13: the hornblende is not a fibrinopeptide. sent14: the hornblende is not a kind of a hyoid. sent15: the fact that the hornblende queues invitation is right. | (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) | sent1: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent2: (Ex): {D}x sent3: (Ex): {HN}x sent4: {DH}{aa} sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{gk} & {B}{gk}) sent6: ({EN}{aa} & {CU}{aa}) sent7: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent8: {F}{cc} sent9: (x): {E}x -> {B}x sent10: ({D}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ({BF}x & {JG}x) sent12: (x): {B}x -> {JA}x sent13: ¬{F}{aa} sent14: ¬{CK}{aa} sent15: {D}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the hornblende is a dub if it is umbelliferous.; sent10 -> int2: the hornblende is not non-umbelliferous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hornblende is a dub is right.; sent9 -> int4: if the hornblende detonates it is a Phascogale.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}; sent10 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{aa}; sent9 -> int4: {E}{aa} -> {B}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | the Senhor does queue headmistress and does weaken. | ({JA}{gk} & {IM}{gk}) | 4 | [
"sent12 -> int5: if the Senhor is a kind of a Phascogale it does queue headmistress.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = something does dub and it is a Phascogale. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. sent2: something queues invitation. sent3: there is something such that it queues Cumberland. sent4: the hornblende is a sharpshooter. sent5: if the ecologist does not queue invitation then the Senhor is a kind of a dub and it is a kind of a Phascogale. sent6: the hornblende is Zoroastrian and queues shoal. sent7: something does queue invitation if it does dub. sent8: the etodolac is a fibrinopeptide. sent9: if something detonates it is a Phascogale. sent10: the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous. sent11: there are polyvalent and curious things. sent12: if something is a Phascogale it queues headmistress. sent13: the hornblende is not a fibrinopeptide. sent14: the hornblende is not a kind of a hyoid. sent15: the fact that the hornblende queues invitation is right. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. | [
"the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous.",
"if something detonates it is a Phascogale."
] | [
"There is a chance that something is umbelliferous.",
"It calls if something is umbelliferous."
] | There is a chance that something is umbelliferous. | the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous. |
something does dub and it is a Phascogale. | sent1: if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. sent2: something queues invitation. sent3: there is something such that it queues Cumberland. sent4: the hornblende is a sharpshooter. sent5: if the ecologist does not queue invitation then the Senhor is a kind of a dub and it is a kind of a Phascogale. sent6: the hornblende is Zoroastrian and queues shoal. sent7: something does queue invitation if it does dub. sent8: the etodolac is a fibrinopeptide. sent9: if something detonates it is a Phascogale. sent10: the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous. sent11: there are polyvalent and curious things. sent12: if something is a Phascogale it queues headmistress. sent13: the hornblende is not a fibrinopeptide. sent14: the hornblende is not a kind of a hyoid. sent15: the fact that the hornblende queues invitation is right. | (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) | sent1: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent2: (Ex): {D}x sent3: (Ex): {HN}x sent4: {DH}{aa} sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{gk} & {B}{gk}) sent6: ({EN}{aa} & {CU}{aa}) sent7: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent8: {F}{cc} sent9: (x): {E}x -> {B}x sent10: ({D}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ({BF}x & {JG}x) sent12: (x): {B}x -> {JA}x sent13: ¬{F}{aa} sent14: ¬{CK}{aa} sent15: {D}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the hornblende is a dub if it is umbelliferous.; sent10 -> int2: the hornblende is not non-umbelliferous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the hornblende is a dub is right.; sent9 -> int4: if the hornblende detonates it is a Phascogale.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}; sent10 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{aa}; sent9 -> int4: {E}{aa} -> {B}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | the Senhor does queue headmistress and does weaken. | ({JA}{gk} & {IM}{gk}) | 4 | [
"sent12 -> int5: if the Senhor is a kind of a Phascogale it does queue headmistress.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = something does dub and it is a Phascogale. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. sent2: something queues invitation. sent3: there is something such that it queues Cumberland. sent4: the hornblende is a sharpshooter. sent5: if the ecologist does not queue invitation then the Senhor is a kind of a dub and it is a kind of a Phascogale. sent6: the hornblende is Zoroastrian and queues shoal. sent7: something does queue invitation if it does dub. sent8: the etodolac is a fibrinopeptide. sent9: if something detonates it is a Phascogale. sent10: the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous. sent11: there are polyvalent and curious things. sent12: if something is a Phascogale it queues headmistress. sent13: the hornblende is not a fibrinopeptide. sent14: the hornblende is not a kind of a hyoid. sent15: the fact that the hornblende queues invitation is right. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something is umbelliferous then it dubs. | [
"the hornblende queues invitation and is umbelliferous.",
"if something detonates it is a Phascogale."
] | [
"There is a chance that something is umbelliferous.",
"It calls if something is umbelliferous."
] | It calls if something is umbelliferous. | if something detonates it is a Phascogale. |
the carefulness occurs. | sent1: the unreceptiveness does not occur. sent2: that the displacement does not occur brings about either that the queuing defloration does not occur or the queuing shading or both. sent3: the armament happens. sent4: the conquering pop-up does not occur. sent5: the centralistness does not occur. sent6: the insertion occurs. sent7: the queuing Kolami or that the overlordship occurs or both is brought about by the non-carefulness. sent8: the patricide happens. sent9: the sweeping happens. sent10: the non-coccygealness and/or the nodularness happens. sent11: the breakthrough does not occur if the fact that the breakthrough and the non-Icelandicness occurs does not hold. sent12: if the propounding redtail occurs then the seining occurs. sent13: if the queuing Burundi does not occur and/or the dynamics happens then the recording does not occur. sent14: the COMINT does not occur if the fact that the queuing Kolami does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that the breakthrough happens and the Icelandicness does not occur is not right if the witness does not occur. sent16: if the insertion occurs the COMINT occurs. sent17: if the exculpatoriness happens then the forcipateness happens. sent18: the unreceptiveness happens if the loading happens. sent19: either the queuing Kolami occurs or the overlordship occurs or both. sent20: the pecking occurs. sent21: the COMINT does not occur if the queuing Kolami does not occur and/or the overlordship happens. sent22: the smack occurs. sent23: that the insertion and the COMINT occurs is caused by that the breakthrough does not occur. | {A} | sent1: ¬{GG} sent2: ¬{II} -> (¬{JE} v {DG}) sent3: {HC} sent4: ¬{FR} sent5: ¬{IG} sent6: {C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ({AA} v {AB}) sent8: {FD} sent9: {JF} sent10: (¬{HG} v {BP}) sent11: ¬({D} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent12: {CN} -> {EP} sent13: (¬{BO} v {EO}) -> ¬{FG} sent14: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{F}) sent16: {C} -> {B} sent17: {DU} -> {CG} sent18: {BR} -> {GG} sent19: ({AA} v {AB}) sent20: {N} sent21: (¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent22: {CC} sent23: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carefulness does not occur.; sent16 & sent6 -> int1: the COMINT happens.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent16 & sent6 -> int1: {B};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 | the carefulness does not occur. | ¬{A} | 8 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the carefulness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the unreceptiveness does not occur. sent2: that the displacement does not occur brings about either that the queuing defloration does not occur or the queuing shading or both. sent3: the armament happens. sent4: the conquering pop-up does not occur. sent5: the centralistness does not occur. sent6: the insertion occurs. sent7: the queuing Kolami or that the overlordship occurs or both is brought about by the non-carefulness. sent8: the patricide happens. sent9: the sweeping happens. sent10: the non-coccygealness and/or the nodularness happens. sent11: the breakthrough does not occur if the fact that the breakthrough and the non-Icelandicness occurs does not hold. sent12: if the propounding redtail occurs then the seining occurs. sent13: if the queuing Burundi does not occur and/or the dynamics happens then the recording does not occur. sent14: the COMINT does not occur if the fact that the queuing Kolami does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that the breakthrough happens and the Icelandicness does not occur is not right if the witness does not occur. sent16: if the insertion occurs the COMINT occurs. sent17: if the exculpatoriness happens then the forcipateness happens. sent18: the unreceptiveness happens if the loading happens. sent19: either the queuing Kolami occurs or the overlordship occurs or both. sent20: the pecking occurs. sent21: the COMINT does not occur if the queuing Kolami does not occur and/or the overlordship happens. sent22: the smack occurs. sent23: that the insertion and the COMINT occurs is caused by that the breakthrough does not occur. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the insertion occurs the COMINT occurs. | [
"the insertion occurs."
] | [
"if the insertion occurs the COMINT occurs."
] | if the insertion occurs the COMINT occurs. | the insertion occurs. |
the vase-fine is autumnal. | sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. | {E}{b} | sent1: (¬{J}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent2: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent3: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent4: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{J}x & ¬{H}x) sent6: ¬{M}{f} sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent11: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent12: ¬{H}{d} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent11 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the vase-fine is not autumnal. | ¬{E}{b} | 11 | [
"sent10 -> int4: if that the vase-fine is non-exuvial thing that does not queue maxi is incorrect then it is not autumnal.; sent4 -> int5: the relative does conquer hutch if it is camphoric.; sent5 -> int6: the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound if it does not conquer Burundi.; sent8 & sent6 -> int7: the fact that the Basque is a kind of a surfeit that is inner is incorrect.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a surfeit and it is inner is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vase-fine is autumnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is exuvial. | [
"the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right.",
"the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct.",
"if something is camphoric then it is autumnal."
] | [
"There is something that is exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial that exists."
] | There is something that is exuvial. | the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. |
the vase-fine is autumnal. | sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. | {E}{b} | sent1: (¬{J}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent2: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent3: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent4: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{J}x & ¬{H}x) sent6: ¬{M}{f} sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent11: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent12: ¬{H}{d} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent11 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the vase-fine is not autumnal. | ¬{E}{b} | 11 | [
"sent10 -> int4: if that the vase-fine is non-exuvial thing that does not queue maxi is incorrect then it is not autumnal.; sent4 -> int5: the relative does conquer hutch if it is camphoric.; sent5 -> int6: the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound if it does not conquer Burundi.; sent8 & sent6 -> int7: the fact that the Basque is a kind of a surfeit that is inner is incorrect.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a surfeit and it is inner is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vase-fine is autumnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is exuvial. | [
"the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right.",
"the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct.",
"if something is camphoric then it is autumnal."
] | [
"There is something that is exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial that exists."
] | There is something called exuvial. | the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. |
the vase-fine is autumnal. | sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. | {E}{b} | sent1: (¬{J}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent2: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent3: (x): {D}x -> {E}x sent4: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{J}x & ¬{H}x) sent6: ¬{M}{f} sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent11: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent12: ¬{H}{d} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent13 -> int1: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & sent11 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {D}{b} -> {E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the vase-fine is not autumnal. | ¬{E}{b} | 11 | [
"sent10 -> int4: if that the vase-fine is non-exuvial thing that does not queue maxi is incorrect then it is not autumnal.; sent4 -> int5: the relative does conquer hutch if it is camphoric.; sent5 -> int6: the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound if it does not conquer Burundi.; sent8 & sent6 -> int7: the fact that the Basque is a kind of a surfeit that is inner is incorrect.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a surfeit and it is inner is not correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vase-fine is autumnal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lacrimation is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a kind of a foxhound then the county is not a foxhound. sent2: the relative is camphoric if the psittacosaur is not a serologist and it is not a kind of a wiggler. sent3: if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. sent4: if something is not non-camphoric it conquers hutch. sent5: something that does not conquer Burundi is not a radiopharmaceutical and is not a foxhound. sent6: the Basque is not a kind of a hisser. sent7: there exists something such that it is exuvial. sent8: that the Basque is both a surfeit and inner is wrong if the fact that it is not a hisser hold. sent9: if the relative does conquer hutch then the vase-fine is camphoric. sent10: if the fact that something is non-exuvial and does not queue maxi is not correct it is not autumnal. sent11: the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct. sent12: if the county is not a foxhound the psittacosaur is not a serologist and is not a kind of a wiggler. sent13: the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the fact that that the relative queues maxi but it does not conquer hutch hold is not right.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the vase-fine is camphoric.; sent3 -> int3: the vase-fine is autumnal if it is camphoric.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is exuvial. | [
"the fact that if something is exuvial then the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not true is right.",
"the vase-fine is camphoric if the fact that the relative queues maxi and does not conquer hutch is not correct.",
"if something is camphoric then it is autumnal."
] | [
"There is something that is exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial.",
"There is something called exuvial that exists."
] | There is something called exuvial that exists. | if something is camphoric then it is autumnal. |
the categoricalness occurs. | sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: the fact that the springtide happens is not false. sent3: the categoricalness happens if the chorus happens. sent4: the sparging occurs and the quadrupedalness happens. sent5: the fact that the queuing Aeschylus occurs is right. sent6: the glowering boarfish does not occur if the fact that the persuasiveness does not occur and the conquering buffeted does not occur does not hold. sent7: the fact that either the chorus or the non-categoricalness or both happens is incorrect if the glowering boarfish does not occur. sent8: the receivership occurs if the fact that the chorusing or the non-categoricalness or both happens is not correct. sent9: the fissileness happens. sent10: the topolatry and the politicsness happens. sent11: that the persuasiveness does not occur and the conquering buffeted does not occur is not correct if the queuing Helen occurs. sent12: both the laparoscopy and the nondisposableness happens. sent13: the advancing occurs. sent14: the rift happens if the receivership happens. | {C} | sent1: {A} sent2: {EO} sent3: {B} -> {C} sent4: ({U} & {IC}) sent5: {BE} sent6: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} v ¬{C}) sent8: ¬({B} v ¬{C}) -> {A} sent9: {GU} sent10: ({FU} & {IM}) sent11: {G} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent12: ({DK} & {EJ}) sent13: {BO} sent14: {A} -> {GI} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | the rift occurs. | {GI} | 10 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the categoricalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the receivership happens. sent2: the fact that the springtide happens is not false. sent3: the categoricalness happens if the chorus happens. sent4: the sparging occurs and the quadrupedalness happens. sent5: the fact that the queuing Aeschylus occurs is right. sent6: the glowering boarfish does not occur if the fact that the persuasiveness does not occur and the conquering buffeted does not occur does not hold. sent7: the fact that either the chorus or the non-categoricalness or both happens is incorrect if the glowering boarfish does not occur. sent8: the receivership occurs if the fact that the chorusing or the non-categoricalness or both happens is not correct. sent9: the fissileness happens. sent10: the topolatry and the politicsness happens. sent11: that the persuasiveness does not occur and the conquering buffeted does not occur is not correct if the queuing Helen occurs. sent12: both the laparoscopy and the nondisposableness happens. sent13: the advancing occurs. sent14: the rift happens if the receivership happens. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the rift happens if the receivership happens. | [
"the advancing occurs."
] | [
"the rift happens if the receivership happens."
] | the rift happens if the receivership happens. | the advancing occurs. |
that the crucible is not ascetic is true. | sent1: a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. sent2: the missionary is arborical. sent3: the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the crucible is ascetic if it is noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the crucible is noncommercial but it is not bibliomaniacal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the crucible is not ascetic is true. ; $context$ = sent1: a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. sent2: the missionary is arborical. sent3: the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the crucible is ascetic if it is noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the crucible is noncommercial but it is not bibliomaniacal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. | [
"the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical.",
"the missionary is arborical."
] | [
"A thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic.",
"A thing that isn't bibliomaniacal is ascetic."
] | A thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. | the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical. |
that the crucible is not ascetic is true. | sent1: a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. sent2: the missionary is arborical. sent3: the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the crucible is ascetic if it is noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the crucible is noncommercial but it is not bibliomaniacal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the crucible is not ascetic is true. ; $context$ = sent1: a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. sent2: the missionary is arborical. sent3: the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the crucible is ascetic if it is noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the crucible is noncommercial but it is not bibliomaniacal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | a noncommercial thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic. | [
"the crucible is both not commercial and non-bibliomaniacal if the missionary is arborical.",
"the missionary is arborical."
] | [
"A thing that is not bibliomaniacal is ascetic.",
"A thing that isn't bibliomaniacal is ascetic."
] | A thing that isn't bibliomaniacal is ascetic. | the missionary is arborical. |
the desensitization does spangle. | sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | {B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬{D}{dn} sent4: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent6: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent6 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 -> int4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the desensitization does spangle hold. | {B}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent2 -> int5: the cosy is a cuddle and it does color Micrurus if it is not unresponsive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the desensitization does spangle. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | [
"if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic.",
"the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right.",
"if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle."
] | [
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy isn't right."
] | If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy is not right. | if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. |
the desensitization does spangle. | sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | {B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬{D}{dn} sent4: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent6: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent6 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 -> int4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the desensitization does spangle hold. | {B}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent2 -> int5: the cosy is a cuddle and it does color Micrurus if it is not unresponsive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the desensitization does spangle. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | [
"if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic.",
"the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right.",
"if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle."
] | [
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy isn't right."
] | If it is not a kind of a dialectic, tonsillectomy is not right. | the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. |
the desensitization does spangle. | sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | {B}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬{D}{dn} sent4: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent6: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) -> {B}{aa} sent8: ¬({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent6 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent1 -> int4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | that the desensitization does spangle hold. | {B}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent2 -> int5: the cosy is a cuddle and it does color Micrurus if it is not unresponsive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the desensitization does spangle. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. sent2: if something is not unresponsive it is a kind of a cuddle and colors Micrurus. sent3: the banger does not color Micrurus. sent4: if the cosy does color Micrurus that the flatmate is not a titfer and does not spangle is not right. sent5: if that the cosy is not a cuddle and it is not unresponsive does not hold then it does color Micrurus. sent6: if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a titfer and/or is not a kind of a dialectic does not hold then the desensitization spangles. sent8: the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right. sent9: that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: if that the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic hold then the fact that that it does color tonsillectomy and it atrophies is right is wrong.; sent6 & sent8 -> int2: the desensitization is not a kind of a dialectic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the desensitization colors tonsillectomy and is an atrophy is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that that the desensitization does color tonsillectomy and does atrophy is right is incorrect it does not spangle.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something colors tonsillectomy and is a kind of an atrophy is not right if it is not a kind of a dialectic. | [
"if the fact that the desensitization does color Micrurus and it is a titfer does not hold it is not a dialectic.",
"the fact that the desensitization colors Micrurus and is a kind of a titfer is not right.",
"if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle."
] | [
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, tonsillectomy is not right.",
"If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy isn't right."
] | If it is not a kind of a dialectic, then tonsillectomy isn't right. | if that something colors tonsillectomy and it atrophies does not hold then it does not spangle. |
the fielder is a wire and/or it is an immune. | sent1: if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. sent2: the aconite is late. sent3: if that something is late but it is not a tramway is not correct that it is not late is right. sent4: if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire. sent5: a fugue is not late but an immune. | ({C}{c} v {D}{c}) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): {B}x -> (¬{A}x & {D}x) | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the rift is a fugue.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fielder does wire is not wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{c}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the yakuza is immune. | {D}{hl} | 4 | [
"sent5 -> int3: the yakuza is not late but it is immune if it is a kind of a fugue.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fielder is a wire and/or it is an immune. ; $context$ = sent1: if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. sent2: the aconite is late. sent3: if that something is late but it is not a tramway is not correct that it is not late is right. sent4: if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire. sent5: a fugue is not late but an immune. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the rift is a fugue.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fielder does wire is not wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. | [
"the aconite is late.",
"if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire."
] | [
"The rift is a fugue hold if the aconite is late.",
"The rift is a fugue hold, if the aconite is late."
] | The rift is a fugue hold if the aconite is late. | the aconite is late. |
the fielder is a wire and/or it is an immune. | sent1: if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. sent2: the aconite is late. sent3: if that something is late but it is not a tramway is not correct that it is not late is right. sent4: if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire. sent5: a fugue is not late but an immune. | ({C}{c} v {D}{c}) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): {B}x -> (¬{A}x & {D}x) | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the rift is a fugue.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fielder does wire is not wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent2 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{c}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the yakuza is immune. | {D}{hl} | 4 | [
"sent5 -> int3: the yakuza is not late but it is immune if it is a kind of a fugue.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fielder is a wire and/or it is an immune. ; $context$ = sent1: if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. sent2: the aconite is late. sent3: if that something is late but it is not a tramway is not correct that it is not late is right. sent4: if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire. sent5: a fugue is not late but an immune. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the rift is a fugue.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fielder does wire is not wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the aconite is late the fact that the rift is a fugue hold. | [
"the aconite is late.",
"if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire."
] | [
"The rift is a fugue hold if the aconite is late.",
"The rift is a fugue hold, if the aconite is late."
] | The rift is a fugue hold, if the aconite is late. | if the rift is a fugue the fielder is a kind of a wire. |
the moneylessness occurs. | sent1: the oversleeping Opera occurs. sent2: the gritting occurs if the fact that the inquest happens is not wrong. sent3: the inquest does not occur. sent4: that both the inquest and the oversleeping Opera occurs is not true if the genuflecting radiomicrometer does not occur. | {C} | sent1: {B} sent2: {A} -> {E} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬{D} -> ¬({A} & {B}) | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the inquest does not occur and the oversleeping Opera happens.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{A} & {B});"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 | the moneylessness does not occur. | ¬{C} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the moneylessness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the oversleeping Opera occurs. sent2: the gritting occurs if the fact that the inquest happens is not wrong. sent3: the inquest does not occur. sent4: that both the inquest and the oversleeping Opera occurs is not true if the genuflecting radiomicrometer does not occur. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the inquest does not occur. | [
"the oversleeping Opera occurs."
] | [
"the inquest does not occur."
] | the inquest does not occur. | the oversleeping Opera occurs. |
the solvate is a kind of a puff. | sent1: the psalmist is a postdiluvian. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Aramaic the psalmist is a kind of a Percheron. sent3: that the stile is a haulm and it is compressible is wrong if the pulverization is not nonadsorbent. sent4: the pulverization is not a Percheron if something is postdiluvian. sent5: if something is nonadsorbent the fact that the stile is a puff and is a haulm does not hold. sent6: if that something is a haulm and compressible is not correct then it is not a haulm. sent7: something is both compressible and nonadsorbent if it is not a Percheron. sent8: something is not a kind of a Aramaic. | {AA}{aa} | sent1: {E}{c} sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> {D}{c} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): {B}x -> ¬({AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{F}x | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 | the solvate is a stocks. | {EL}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent6 -> int1: if that the stile is a kind of a haulm and is compressible is not correct then it is not a haulm.; sent8 & sent2 -> int2: the psalmist is a kind of a Percheron.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the solvate is a kind of a puff. ; $context$ = sent1: the psalmist is a postdiluvian. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Aramaic the psalmist is a kind of a Percheron. sent3: that the stile is a haulm and it is compressible is wrong if the pulverization is not nonadsorbent. sent4: the pulverization is not a Percheron if something is postdiluvian. sent5: if something is nonadsorbent the fact that the stile is a puff and is a haulm does not hold. sent6: if that something is a haulm and compressible is not correct then it is not a haulm. sent7: something is both compressible and nonadsorbent if it is not a Percheron. sent8: something is not a kind of a Aramaic. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | that the stile is a haulm and it is compressible is wrong if the pulverization is not nonadsorbent. | [
"if that something is a haulm and compressible is not correct then it is not a haulm."
] | [
"that the stile is a haulm and it is compressible is wrong if the pulverization is not nonadsorbent."
] | that the stile is a haulm and it is compressible is wrong if the pulverization is not nonadsorbent. | if that something is a haulm and compressible is not correct then it is not a haulm. |
the darts is non-adjectival. | sent1: there exists something such that that it genuflects Odyssey and it is not a calico is not right. sent2: if there is something such that that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not a calico does not hold then the darts is adjectival. sent3: the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a kind of a calico is not right. sent4: there exists something such that it does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a calico. sent5: the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey but it is a kind of a calico is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the bookshelf does genuflect Odyssey and is not calico is not correct. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent3 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not calico does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the darts is non-adjectival. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it genuflects Odyssey and it is not a calico is not right. sent2: if there is something such that that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not a calico does not hold then the darts is adjectival. sent3: the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a kind of a calico is not right. sent4: there exists something such that it does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a calico. sent5: the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey but it is a kind of a calico is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the bookshelf does genuflect Odyssey and is not calico is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not calico does not hold.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a kind of a calico is not right. | [
"if there is something such that that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not a calico does not hold then the darts is adjectival."
] | [
"the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a kind of a calico is not right."
] | the fact that the bookshelf does not genuflect Odyssey and it is not a kind of a calico is not right. | if there is something such that that it does not genuflect Odyssey and is not a calico does not hold then the darts is adjectival. |
that the Pus does not color halo and it is not a kind of a tickle is incorrect. | sent1: if there exists something such that it colors halo then that the skylark is a tickle and does not oversleep codlins-and-cream is false. sent2: that the Pus does not color halo and is a tickle does not hold. sent3: something does tickle if it oversleeps codlins-and-cream. sent4: the fact that the Pus does not color halo and does not tickle does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does oversleep codlins-and-cream is true. sent5: if the Pus does oversleep codlins-and-cream then the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream. sent6: The codlins-and-cream does oversleep skylark. sent7: that the Pus does color halo but it is not a tickle is false. | ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: {A}{a} -> {A}{eu} sent6: {AA}{ab} sent7: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | that the Thymus is a kind of a tickle is not false. | {B}{eu} | 6 | [
"sent3 -> int1: that the Thymus is the tickle if the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream is right.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the Pus does not color halo and it is not a kind of a tickle is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it colors halo then that the skylark is a tickle and does not oversleep codlins-and-cream is false. sent2: that the Pus does not color halo and is a tickle does not hold. sent3: something does tickle if it oversleeps codlins-and-cream. sent4: the fact that the Pus does not color halo and does not tickle does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does oversleep codlins-and-cream is true. sent5: if the Pus does oversleep codlins-and-cream then the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream. sent6: The codlins-and-cream does oversleep skylark. sent7: that the Pus does color halo but it is not a tickle is false. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the Pus does oversleep codlins-and-cream then the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream. | [
"that the Pus does color halo but it is not a tickle is false."
] | [
"if the Pus does oversleep codlins-and-cream then the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream."
] | if the Pus does oversleep codlins-and-cream then the Thymus does oversleep codlins-and-cream. | that the Pus does color halo but it is not a tickle is false. |
the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus and it does enlist. | sent1: if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious. sent2: something is a Drambuie or engineers or both. sent3: the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus if the bitterwood is a kind of a sabertooth. sent4: the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious. sent5: something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. | ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) | sent1: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> {F}{b} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: {F}{b} -> {E}{b} sent5: (Ex): (¬{H}x & {G}x) | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the chatterer is dioecious.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the chatterer does enlist.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: {F}{b}; sent4 & int1 -> int2: {E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus and it does enlist. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious. sent2: something is a Drambuie or engineers or both. sent3: the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus if the bitterwood is a kind of a sabertooth. sent4: the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious. sent5: something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. | [
"if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious.",
"the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious."
] | [
"There is something that does not color Alyssum.",
"There is something that doesn't color Alyssum."
] | There is something that does not color Alyssum. | if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious. |
the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus and it does enlist. | sent1: if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious. sent2: something is a Drambuie or engineers or both. sent3: the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus if the bitterwood is a kind of a sabertooth. sent4: the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious. sent5: something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. | ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) | sent1: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> {F}{b} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: {F}{b} -> {E}{b} sent5: (Ex): (¬{H}x & {G}x) | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the chatterer is dioecious.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the chatterer does enlist.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent5 & sent1 -> int1: {F}{b}; sent4 & int1 -> int2: {E}{b};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus and it does enlist. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious. sent2: something is a Drambuie or engineers or both. sent3: the chatterer finalizes Ptilocercus if the bitterwood is a kind of a sabertooth. sent4: the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious. sent5: something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something does not color Alyssum but it oversleeps interregnum. | [
"if there is something such that it does not color Alyssum and oversleeps interregnum the chatterer is dioecious.",
"the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious."
] | [
"There is something that does not color Alyssum.",
"There is something that doesn't color Alyssum."
] | There is something that doesn't color Alyssum. | the chatterer does enlist if it is dioecious. |
there is something such that the fact that it is both not a hyaline and not a season does not hold. | sent1: if the walnut is serologic it does oversleep jointer. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a limbus then that the goshawk is a limbus and it does genuflect erotic is incorrect. sent3: that that the jointer is a kind of a hyaline and is a kind of a Sikh does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a hyaline is correct. sent4: something is not a hyaline if the fact that it is both a hyaline and Sikh is not true. sent5: that that the ceftazidime is extant thing that is not a tau is not false is not true. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a hyaline and seasons is not true. sent7: the central is not a hyaline. sent8: the jointer is not a season and it does not come if the goshawk is not a limbus. sent9: the antipsychotic is inshore. sent10: there exists something such that it is both not a hyaline and not a season. sent11: that that the ceftazidime is not a hyaline and seasons is true is wrong if there exists something such that that it does come hold. sent12: the fact that the ceftazidime is a hyaline but it is not a season is wrong if there is something such that it comes. sent13: the Cornishwoman is inshore. sent14: that the ceftazidime is not inshore is correct if something that is not a hyaline does not come. sent15: that the ceftazidime is both not a hyaline and a season is not true. sent16: the Tanzanian is not a limbus. sent17: the antipsychotic does come if it is not offshore. sent18: the antipsychotic is a angiopathy. sent19: something is not a limbus if the fact that it is a limbus and does genuflect erotic is not true. sent20: the fact that that the ceftazidime is a hyaline but not a season is not incorrect does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hyaline and it does not season is false. sent22: the fact that the antipsychotic is both not juicy and not a hatchback is not right if there exists something such that it is not inshore. | (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) | sent1: {ES}{di} -> {HI}{di} sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent3: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {E}{c}) sent4: (x): ¬({C}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: ¬(¬{AE}{b} & ¬{DM}{b}) sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent7: ¬{C}{e} sent8: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent11: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: {A}{dq} sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent15: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent16: ¬{F}{f} sent17: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent18: {DD}{a} sent19: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent20: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent21: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent22: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{GI}{a} & ¬{DP}{a}) | [
"sent17 & sent9 -> int1: the antipsychotic does come.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does come.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent17 & sent9 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): {B}x;"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 | there is something such that the fact that it is non-juicy thing that is not a hatchback is wrong. | (Ex): ¬(¬{GI}x & ¬{DP}x) | 11 | [
"sent4 -> int3: if that the jointer is a hyaline and is not non-Sikh is not right then it is not a hyaline.; sent7 -> int4: there exists something such that it is not a hyaline.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the fact that the jointer is both a hyaline and Sikh is not true.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the jointer is not a kind of a hyaline.; sent19 -> int7: if the fact that the goshawk is a limbus and genuflects erotic is not correct then it is not a limbus.; sent16 -> int8: there is something such that it is not a limbus.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: that the goshawk is a limbus that genuflects erotic is incorrect.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the goshawk is not a limbus.; sent8 & int10 -> int11: the jointer is not a season and it does not come.; int11 -> int12: the jointer does not come.; int6 & int12 -> int13: the jointer is not a kind of a hyaline and it does not come.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is not a hyaline and it does not come.; int14 & sent14 -> int15: the ceftazidime is not inshore.; int15 -> int16: there are non-inshore things.; int16 & sent22 -> int17: the fact that the antipsychotic is a kind of non-juicy thing that is not a hatchback is false.; int17 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it is both not a hyaline and not a season does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the walnut is serologic it does oversleep jointer. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a limbus then that the goshawk is a limbus and it does genuflect erotic is incorrect. sent3: that that the jointer is a kind of a hyaline and is a kind of a Sikh does not hold if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a hyaline is correct. sent4: something is not a hyaline if the fact that it is both a hyaline and Sikh is not true. sent5: that that the ceftazidime is extant thing that is not a tau is not false is not true. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a hyaline and seasons is not true. sent7: the central is not a hyaline. sent8: the jointer is not a season and it does not come if the goshawk is not a limbus. sent9: the antipsychotic is inshore. sent10: there exists something such that it is both not a hyaline and not a season. sent11: that that the ceftazidime is not a hyaline and seasons is true is wrong if there exists something such that that it does come hold. sent12: the fact that the ceftazidime is a hyaline but it is not a season is wrong if there is something such that it comes. sent13: the Cornishwoman is inshore. sent14: that the ceftazidime is not inshore is correct if something that is not a hyaline does not come. sent15: that the ceftazidime is both not a hyaline and a season is not true. sent16: the Tanzanian is not a limbus. sent17: the antipsychotic does come if it is not offshore. sent18: the antipsychotic is a angiopathy. sent19: something is not a limbus if the fact that it is a limbus and does genuflect erotic is not true. sent20: the fact that that the ceftazidime is a hyaline but not a season is not incorrect does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a hyaline and it does not season is false. sent22: the fact that the antipsychotic is both not juicy and not a hatchback is not right if there exists something such that it is not inshore. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the antipsychotic does come if it is not offshore. | [
"the antipsychotic is inshore."
] | [
"the antipsychotic does come if it is not offshore."
] | the antipsychotic does come if it is not offshore. | the antipsychotic is inshore. |
the lotion does not finalize rested. | sent1: the tramway does not finalize rested if that the trash does not finalize rested and/or it is a monomaniac is incorrect. sent2: the iconoclast is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime if the Tokay is vestmental. sent3: if the iconoclast is both not a monomaniac and systematic then the lotion is icosahedral. sent4: if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment. sent5: the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous. sent6: that the lotion does finalize rested and is aeriferous hold if it is not a quicklime. sent7: the lotion does not finalize rested if it is icosahedral thing that does finalize presentment. sent8: if the T-bar finalizes presentment then the Tokay is vestmental. sent9: if the tramway does finalize presentment then the T-bar finalize presentment. sent10: something is not aeriferous. sent11: the lotion does not sleep if there exists something such that it is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime. sent12: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac. sent13: the fact that the cracking is not systematic is right. sent14: if the fact that something is not systematic is correct the fact that the trash does not finalize rested and/or is a kind of a monomaniac is incorrect. sent15: The screwup does not color iconoclast. sent16: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac but it is not unsystematic if it does not color screwup. | ¬{F}{a} | sent1: ¬(¬{F}{f} v {H}{f}) -> ¬{F}{e} sent2: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} v {B}{b}) sent3: (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({F}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent8: {D}{d} -> {C}{c} sent9: {D}{e} -> {D}{d} sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (x): (¬{A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{FO}{a} sent12: ¬{H}{b} sent13: ¬{G}{g} sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{f} v {H}{f}) sent15: ¬{AC}{ac} sent16: ¬{I}{b} -> (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) | [
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: the lotion is a quicklime but it is not vestmental.; sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the lotion finalizes presentment is true if the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lotion finalizes presentment.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent4 -> int2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | the lotion finalizes rested. | {F}{a} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lotion does not finalize rested. ; $context$ = sent1: the tramway does not finalize rested if that the trash does not finalize rested and/or it is a monomaniac is incorrect. sent2: the iconoclast is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime if the Tokay is vestmental. sent3: if the iconoclast is both not a monomaniac and systematic then the lotion is icosahedral. sent4: if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment. sent5: the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous. sent6: that the lotion does finalize rested and is aeriferous hold if it is not a quicklime. sent7: the lotion does not finalize rested if it is icosahedral thing that does finalize presentment. sent8: if the T-bar finalizes presentment then the Tokay is vestmental. sent9: if the tramway does finalize presentment then the T-bar finalize presentment. sent10: something is not aeriferous. sent11: the lotion does not sleep if there exists something such that it is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime. sent12: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac. sent13: the fact that the cracking is not systematic is right. sent14: if the fact that something is not systematic is correct the fact that the trash does not finalize rested and/or is a kind of a monomaniac is incorrect. sent15: The screwup does not color iconoclast. sent16: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac but it is not unsystematic if it does not color screwup. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is not aeriferous. | [
"the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous.",
"if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment."
] | [
"Something is notiferous.",
"Something isn't aeriferous."
] | Something is notiferous. | the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous. |
the lotion does not finalize rested. | sent1: the tramway does not finalize rested if that the trash does not finalize rested and/or it is a monomaniac is incorrect. sent2: the iconoclast is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime if the Tokay is vestmental. sent3: if the iconoclast is both not a monomaniac and systematic then the lotion is icosahedral. sent4: if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment. sent5: the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous. sent6: that the lotion does finalize rested and is aeriferous hold if it is not a quicklime. sent7: the lotion does not finalize rested if it is icosahedral thing that does finalize presentment. sent8: if the T-bar finalizes presentment then the Tokay is vestmental. sent9: if the tramway does finalize presentment then the T-bar finalize presentment. sent10: something is not aeriferous. sent11: the lotion does not sleep if there exists something such that it is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime. sent12: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac. sent13: the fact that the cracking is not systematic is right. sent14: if the fact that something is not systematic is correct the fact that the trash does not finalize rested and/or is a kind of a monomaniac is incorrect. sent15: The screwup does not color iconoclast. sent16: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac but it is not unsystematic if it does not color screwup. | ¬{F}{a} | sent1: ¬(¬{F}{f} v {H}{f}) -> ¬{F}{e} sent2: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} v {B}{b}) sent3: (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({F}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent8: {D}{d} -> {C}{c} sent9: {D}{e} -> {D}{d} sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent11: (x): (¬{A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{FO}{a} sent12: ¬{H}{b} sent13: ¬{G}{g} sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{f} v {H}{f}) sent15: ¬{AC}{ac} sent16: ¬{I}{b} -> (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) | [
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: the lotion is a quicklime but it is not vestmental.; sent4 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the lotion finalizes presentment is true if the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lotion finalizes presentment.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent10 & sent5 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent4 -> int2: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | the lotion finalizes rested. | {F}{a} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lotion does not finalize rested. ; $context$ = sent1: the tramway does not finalize rested if that the trash does not finalize rested and/or it is a monomaniac is incorrect. sent2: the iconoclast is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime if the Tokay is vestmental. sent3: if the iconoclast is both not a monomaniac and systematic then the lotion is icosahedral. sent4: if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment. sent5: the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous. sent6: that the lotion does finalize rested and is aeriferous hold if it is not a quicklime. sent7: the lotion does not finalize rested if it is icosahedral thing that does finalize presentment. sent8: if the T-bar finalizes presentment then the Tokay is vestmental. sent9: if the tramway does finalize presentment then the T-bar finalize presentment. sent10: something is not aeriferous. sent11: the lotion does not sleep if there exists something such that it is not aeriferous and/or it is a quicklime. sent12: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac. sent13: the fact that the cracking is not systematic is right. sent14: if the fact that something is not systematic is correct the fact that the trash does not finalize rested and/or is a kind of a monomaniac is incorrect. sent15: The screwup does not color iconoclast. sent16: the iconoclast is not a monomaniac but it is not unsystematic if it does not color screwup. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is not aeriferous. | [
"the lotion is a quicklime and is not vestmental if there is something such that it is not aeriferous.",
"if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment."
] | [
"Something is notiferous.",
"Something isn't aeriferous."
] | Something isn't aeriferous. | if something that is a quicklime is not vestmental then it finalizes presentment. |
that the section is both a unexchangeability and not malign does not hold. | sent1: the fact that the carbomycin is a kind of a unexchangeability but it does not contribute is correct. sent2: the hob is a unexchangeability. sent3: the section is not a pyramid. sent4: the homeotherm does possess but it is not uterine. sent5: the section oversleeps swivel and is not a Nasser. sent6: the meeting is a kind of a unexchangeability. sent7: the section is immeasurable but it is not a Nasser. sent8: that if that the section finalizes carbomycin hold the section is eponymous is not false. sent9: the fact that the section is not malign is true. sent10: that something is malign but it is not a kind of a stagnation is false if it is eponymous. sent11: if something is eponymous then the fact that it is a unexchangeability that is non-malign is not true. sent12: the section is a unexchangeability. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: ({A}{it} & ¬{JE}{it}) sent2: {A}{fb} sent3: ¬{JA}{a} sent4: ({JK}{dd} & ¬{EK}{dd}) sent5: ({BL}{a} & ¬{JD}{a}) sent6: {A}{ag} sent7: ({EJ}{a} & ¬{JD}{a}) sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent11: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent12: {A}{a} | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | the fact that the section is a unexchangeability but it is not malign is wrong. | ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | 4 | [
"sent11 -> int1: the fact that the section is a unexchangeability that is not malign is wrong if it is eponymous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the section is both a unexchangeability and not malign does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the carbomycin is a kind of a unexchangeability but it does not contribute is correct. sent2: the hob is a unexchangeability. sent3: the section is not a pyramid. sent4: the homeotherm does possess but it is not uterine. sent5: the section oversleeps swivel and is not a Nasser. sent6: the meeting is a kind of a unexchangeability. sent7: the section is immeasurable but it is not a Nasser. sent8: that if that the section finalizes carbomycin hold the section is eponymous is not false. sent9: the fact that the section is not malign is true. sent10: that something is malign but it is not a kind of a stagnation is false if it is eponymous. sent11: if something is eponymous then the fact that it is a unexchangeability that is non-malign is not true. sent12: the section is a unexchangeability. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the section is a unexchangeability. | [
"the fact that the section is not malign is true."
] | [
"the section is a unexchangeability."
] | the section is a unexchangeability. | the fact that the section is not malign is true. |
the Cork is a glyptography. | sent1: if something is Markovian but not a Haggard then it is not a beautician. sent2: something does not color presentment and does not genuflect remarriage. sent3: the Cork jokes if there exists something such that it is not far and does not genuflect remarriage. sent4: the honesty does finalize Tzara if something that does not finalize slipknot is not fundamentalist. sent5: the Cork is a barium if something that is not a materiel does not color Bogart. sent6: the catch genuflects remarriage if there exists something such that it is not reputable and it is not phonetics. sent7: something is Markovian thing that is not a Haggard if it is a Ponca. sent8: the fact that the Cork is a glyptography is not incorrect if something that does not color presentment does not genuflect remarriage. sent9: if something that does not color presentment genuflects remarriage the fact that the Cork is a glyptography hold. | {A}{a} | sent1: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (x): (¬{GT}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {BR}{a} sent4: (x): (¬{HD}x & ¬{B}x) -> {DM}{ao} sent5: (x): (¬{FL}x & ¬{AQ}x) -> {EN}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{ID}x & ¬{IL}x) -> {AB}{ge} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the chuck-will's-widow is a glyptography. | {A}{fa} | 8 | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the chuck-will's-widow is Markovian but it is not a Haggard it is not a beautician.; sent7 -> int2: the Cork is a kind of Markovian thing that is not a Haggard if it is a Ponca.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Cork is a glyptography. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is Markovian but not a Haggard then it is not a beautician. sent2: something does not color presentment and does not genuflect remarriage. sent3: the Cork jokes if there exists something such that it is not far and does not genuflect remarriage. sent4: the honesty does finalize Tzara if something that does not finalize slipknot is not fundamentalist. sent5: the Cork is a barium if something that is not a materiel does not color Bogart. sent6: the catch genuflects remarriage if there exists something such that it is not reputable and it is not phonetics. sent7: something is Markovian thing that is not a Haggard if it is a Ponca. sent8: the fact that the Cork is a glyptography is not incorrect if something that does not color presentment does not genuflect remarriage. sent9: if something that does not color presentment genuflects remarriage the fact that the Cork is a glyptography hold. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something does not color presentment and does not genuflect remarriage. | [
"the fact that the Cork is a glyptography is not incorrect if something that does not color presentment does not genuflect remarriage."
] | [
"something does not color presentment and does not genuflect remarriage."
] | something does not color presentment and does not genuflect remarriage. | the fact that the Cork is a glyptography is not incorrect if something that does not color presentment does not genuflect remarriage. |
the vesture is citric. | sent1: the page is not dizygotic if the fact that it does genuflect page and it is dizygotic is not true. sent2: something is not animatistic. sent3: something does not finalize Westinghouse and is a roundup if it is not non-citric. sent4: something is not a kind of a fulmination if that it is a kind of a Nanna and is a kind of a fulmination is wrong. sent5: if that the page is a luncher hold it does oversleep Carpinus and it is not a roundup. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not constructive that the vesture does oversleep Carpinus and does not color copula is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. sent8: if the fact that something is a luncher is correct then it is citric. sent9: that the repressor is both a trample and not unborn is not right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a roundup. sent10: something is a kind of a luncher if it is not dizygotic. sent11: if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold. sent12: the vesture is not citric if the page does oversleep Carpinus and it is citric. sent13: if that the page does oversleep Carpinus is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a Rasputin and not a twenty-twenty is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if something that does not finalize Westinghouse is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus. sent15: something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false. sent16: something is Pauline if that it is a kind of a torticollis is not false. sent17: that the page genuflects page and it is dizygotic is not correct if the repressor is not a fulmination. sent18: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a Hawaiian but it does not color bignoniad is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a luncher and does not finalize expression is not right if there exists something such that it is not alternating. | {D}{a} | sent1: ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent2: (Ex): ¬{AT}x sent3: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): ¬({J}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent5: {E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{EK}x -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{HS}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({FA}{c} & ¬{DQ}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent13: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{T}{a} & ¬{AF}{a}) sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent16: (x): {EM}x -> {IP}x sent17: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent18: ¬({AU}{a} & ¬{AP}{a}) sent19: (x): ¬{IT}x -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{IO}{a}) | [
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: the vesture is citric if that it is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent15 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a kind of a Rasputin and it is not a twenty-twenty is wrong is true. | ¬(¬{T}{a} & ¬{AF}{a}) | 9 | [
"sent14 -> int3: if the page does not finalize Westinghouse but it is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus.; sent3 -> int4: if the page is citric then it does not finalize Westinghouse and is a kind of a roundup.; sent8 -> int5: the page is citric if it is a luncher.; sent10 -> int6: if the page is not dizygotic then it is a luncher.; sent4 -> int7: the repressor is not a kind of a fulmination if the fact that it is a Nanna and is a fulmination is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vesture is citric. ; $context$ = sent1: the page is not dizygotic if the fact that it does genuflect page and it is dizygotic is not true. sent2: something is not animatistic. sent3: something does not finalize Westinghouse and is a roundup if it is not non-citric. sent4: something is not a kind of a fulmination if that it is a kind of a Nanna and is a kind of a fulmination is wrong. sent5: if that the page is a luncher hold it does oversleep Carpinus and it is not a roundup. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not constructive that the vesture does oversleep Carpinus and does not color copula is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. sent8: if the fact that something is a luncher is correct then it is citric. sent9: that the repressor is both a trample and not unborn is not right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a roundup. sent10: something is a kind of a luncher if it is not dizygotic. sent11: if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold. sent12: the vesture is not citric if the page does oversleep Carpinus and it is citric. sent13: if that the page does oversleep Carpinus is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a Rasputin and not a twenty-twenty is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if something that does not finalize Westinghouse is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus. sent15: something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false. sent16: something is Pauline if that it is a kind of a torticollis is not false. sent17: that the page genuflects page and it is dizygotic is not correct if the repressor is not a fulmination. sent18: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a Hawaiian but it does not color bignoniad is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a luncher and does not finalize expression is not right if there exists something such that it is not alternating. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent11 -> int1: that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: the vesture is citric if that it is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. | [
"if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.",
"something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false."
] | [
"There is something that does not oversleep.",
"There is something that does not over sleep Carpinus."
] | There is something that does not oversleep. | if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold. |
the vesture is citric. | sent1: the page is not dizygotic if the fact that it does genuflect page and it is dizygotic is not true. sent2: something is not animatistic. sent3: something does not finalize Westinghouse and is a roundup if it is not non-citric. sent4: something is not a kind of a fulmination if that it is a kind of a Nanna and is a kind of a fulmination is wrong. sent5: if that the page is a luncher hold it does oversleep Carpinus and it is not a roundup. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not constructive that the vesture does oversleep Carpinus and does not color copula is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. sent8: if the fact that something is a luncher is correct then it is citric. sent9: that the repressor is both a trample and not unborn is not right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a roundup. sent10: something is a kind of a luncher if it is not dizygotic. sent11: if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold. sent12: the vesture is not citric if the page does oversleep Carpinus and it is citric. sent13: if that the page does oversleep Carpinus is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a Rasputin and not a twenty-twenty is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if something that does not finalize Westinghouse is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus. sent15: something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false. sent16: something is Pauline if that it is a kind of a torticollis is not false. sent17: that the page genuflects page and it is dizygotic is not correct if the repressor is not a fulmination. sent18: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a Hawaiian but it does not color bignoniad is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a luncher and does not finalize expression is not right if there exists something such that it is not alternating. | {D}{a} | sent1: ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent2: (Ex): ¬{AT}x sent3: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): ¬({J}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent5: {E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{EK}x -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{HS}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({FA}{c} & ¬{DQ}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent13: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{T}{a} & ¬{AF}{a}) sent14: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent15: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {D}x sent16: (x): {EM}x -> {IP}x sent17: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent18: ¬({AU}{a} & ¬{AP}{a}) sent19: (x): ¬{IT}x -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{IO}{a}) | [
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: the vesture is citric if that it is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); sent15 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a kind of a Rasputin and it is not a twenty-twenty is wrong is true. | ¬(¬{T}{a} & ¬{AF}{a}) | 9 | [
"sent14 -> int3: if the page does not finalize Westinghouse but it is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus.; sent3 -> int4: if the page is citric then it does not finalize Westinghouse and is a kind of a roundup.; sent8 -> int5: the page is citric if it is a luncher.; sent10 -> int6: if the page is not dizygotic then it is a luncher.; sent4 -> int7: the repressor is not a kind of a fulmination if the fact that it is a Nanna and is a fulmination is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the vesture is citric. ; $context$ = sent1: the page is not dizygotic if the fact that it does genuflect page and it is dizygotic is not true. sent2: something is not animatistic. sent3: something does not finalize Westinghouse and is a roundup if it is not non-citric. sent4: something is not a kind of a fulmination if that it is a kind of a Nanna and is a kind of a fulmination is wrong. sent5: if that the page is a luncher hold it does oversleep Carpinus and it is not a roundup. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not constructive that the vesture does oversleep Carpinus and does not color copula is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. sent8: if the fact that something is a luncher is correct then it is citric. sent9: that the repressor is both a trample and not unborn is not right if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a roundup. sent10: something is a kind of a luncher if it is not dizygotic. sent11: if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold. sent12: the vesture is not citric if the page does oversleep Carpinus and it is citric. sent13: if that the page does oversleep Carpinus is not incorrect then the fact that the fact that the vesture is not a Rasputin and not a twenty-twenty is not correct is not incorrect. sent14: if something that does not finalize Westinghouse is a roundup it does oversleep Carpinus. sent15: something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false. sent16: something is Pauline if that it is a kind of a torticollis is not false. sent17: that the page genuflects page and it is dizygotic is not correct if the repressor is not a fulmination. sent18: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a Hawaiian but it does not color bignoniad is not correct. sent19: the fact that the vesture is a kind of a luncher and does not finalize expression is not right if there exists something such that it is not alternating. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent11 -> int1: that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; sent15 -> int2: the vesture is citric if that it is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus. | [
"if there is something such that it does not oversleep Carpinus then the fact that the vesture is not a roundup and it does not finalize Westinghouse does not hold.",
"something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false."
] | [
"There is something that does not oversleep.",
"There is something that does not over sleep Carpinus."
] | There is something that does not over sleep Carpinus. | something is citric if that it is not a roundup and does not finalize Westinghouse is false. |
there exists something such that it does not finalize Artamus. | sent1: if the hayrack is Singhalese it is a Phalacrocorax. sent2: the hayrack is Singhalese if that the plantigrade is not non-Coleridgian is not wrong. sent3: there are ceric things. sent4: something does finalize croaker and is dictatorial. sent5: there exists something such that it is a pituitary and it is a name. sent6: if there exists something such that it is autocatalytic and oversleeps ribose then that the pane does color biquadrate is false. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a pituitary and it is a kind of a chinaware then the hemiparasite does not dose. sent8: the prayer does not entertain. sent9: that the hemiparasite is not a pepperidge is not wrong if a Singhalese thing is a name. sent10: there exists something such that it finalizes Artamus. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a name is true. sent12: that the hayrack does not finalize Artamus is correct if a pituitary names. sent13: something is a kind of a name. sent14: the fact that the plantigrade is Coleridgian hold. sent15: there exists something such that it is herbivorous. sent16: there is something such that it is pituitary. | (Ex): ¬{C}x | sent1: {D}{a} -> {AH}{a} sent2: {F}{d} -> {D}{a} sent3: (Ex): {CI}x sent4: (Ex): ({BJ}x & {DR}x) sent5: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ({CB}x & {EM}x) -> ¬{CG}{dc} sent7: (x): ({A}x & {E}x) -> ¬{GN}{au} sent8: ¬{DI}{fb} sent9: (x): ({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{DF}{au} sent10: (Ex): {C}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent12: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: (Ex): {B}x sent14: {F}{d} sent15: (Ex): {IT}x sent16: (Ex): {A}x | [
"sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the hayrack does not finalize Artamus.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the fact that there exists something such that it is a kind of a chatroom that is metallurgical is not wrong. | (Ex): ({H}x & {IH}x) | 4 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does not finalize Artamus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hayrack is Singhalese it is a Phalacrocorax. sent2: the hayrack is Singhalese if that the plantigrade is not non-Coleridgian is not wrong. sent3: there are ceric things. sent4: something does finalize croaker and is dictatorial. sent5: there exists something such that it is a pituitary and it is a name. sent6: if there exists something such that it is autocatalytic and oversleeps ribose then that the pane does color biquadrate is false. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a pituitary and it is a kind of a chinaware then the hemiparasite does not dose. sent8: the prayer does not entertain. sent9: that the hemiparasite is not a pepperidge is not wrong if a Singhalese thing is a name. sent10: there exists something such that it finalizes Artamus. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a name is true. sent12: that the hayrack does not finalize Artamus is correct if a pituitary names. sent13: something is a kind of a name. sent14: the fact that the plantigrade is Coleridgian hold. sent15: there exists something such that it is herbivorous. sent16: there is something such that it is pituitary. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the hayrack does not finalize Artamus.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is a pituitary and it is a name. | [
"that the hayrack does not finalize Artamus is correct if a pituitary names."
] | [
"there exists something such that it is a pituitary and it is a name."
] | there exists something such that it is a pituitary and it is a name. | that the hayrack does not finalize Artamus is correct if a pituitary names. |
the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. | sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | sent1: {AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: {AC}{ab} sent6: {N}{e} -> (¬{L}{e} & {M}{e}) sent7: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent8: ({AB}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent10: ¬{A}{aa} sent11: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x v {CM}x) sent13: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {G}x sent15: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent16: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: {G}{d} -> ¬{F}{c} sent18: ({CB}{n} & {C}{n}) sent19: {FG}{a} sent20: (x): (¬{L}x & {M}x) -> ¬{K}x sent21: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent22: {B}{a} sent23: (x): ¬{K}x -> {J}x sent24: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) | [
"sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent16 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | the posturer is not a kind of a religion or it does oversleep PC or both. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | 12 | [
"sent7 -> int4: that the spa is a kind of a condensation hold if that it is a dummy and it does not oversleep gook is not correct.; sent14 -> int5: the brass is a Jabalpur if that the fact that it does not color George and it is not a kind of a Gawain hold is wrong.; sent24 -> int6: the fact that the brass does not color George and is not a kind of a Gawain is incorrect if it does daydream.; sent23 -> int7: the brass daydreams if it does not oversleep lightness.; sent20 -> int8: the brass does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and is submissive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. ; $context$ = sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. ; $proof$ = | sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. | [
"the hajji is ectomorphic.",
"the hajji finalizes Cimarron.",
"that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong."
] | [
"A condensation is not false if something is close to Cimarron.",
"A condensation is not false if something is close to the truth.",
"If something is close to Cimarron then it is not a condensation."
] | A condensation is not false if something is close to Cimarron. | the hajji is ectomorphic. |
the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. | sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | sent1: {AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: {AC}{ab} sent6: {N}{e} -> (¬{L}{e} & {M}{e}) sent7: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent8: ({AB}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent10: ¬{A}{aa} sent11: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x v {CM}x) sent13: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {G}x sent15: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent16: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: {G}{d} -> ¬{F}{c} sent18: ({CB}{n} & {C}{n}) sent19: {FG}{a} sent20: (x): (¬{L}x & {M}x) -> ¬{K}x sent21: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent22: {B}{a} sent23: (x): ¬{K}x -> {J}x sent24: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) | [
"sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent16 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | the posturer is not a kind of a religion or it does oversleep PC or both. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | 12 | [
"sent7 -> int4: that the spa is a kind of a condensation hold if that it is a dummy and it does not oversleep gook is not correct.; sent14 -> int5: the brass is a Jabalpur if that the fact that it does not color George and it is not a kind of a Gawain hold is wrong.; sent24 -> int6: the fact that the brass does not color George and is not a kind of a Gawain is incorrect if it does daydream.; sent23 -> int7: the brass daydreams if it does not oversleep lightness.; sent20 -> int8: the brass does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and is submissive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. ; $context$ = sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. ; $proof$ = | sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. | [
"the hajji is ectomorphic.",
"the hajji finalizes Cimarron.",
"that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong."
] | [
"A condensation is not false if something is close to Cimarron.",
"A condensation is not false if something is close to the truth.",
"If something is close to Cimarron then it is not a condensation."
] | A condensation is not false if something is close to the truth. | the hajji finalizes Cimarron. |
the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. | sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | sent1: {AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: {AC}{ab} sent6: {N}{e} -> (¬{L}{e} & {M}{e}) sent7: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}x sent8: ({AB}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent10: ¬{A}{aa} sent11: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x v {CM}x) sent13: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {G}x sent15: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent16: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: {G}{d} -> ¬{F}{c} sent18: ({CB}{n} & {C}{n}) sent19: {FG}{a} sent20: (x): (¬{L}x & {M}x) -> ¬{K}x sent21: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent22: {B}{a} sent23: (x): ¬{K}x -> {J}x sent24: (x): {J}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) | [
"sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent16 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | the posturer is not a kind of a religion or it does oversleep PC or both. | (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) | 12 | [
"sent7 -> int4: that the spa is a kind of a condensation hold if that it is a dummy and it does not oversleep gook is not correct.; sent14 -> int5: the brass is a Jabalpur if that the fact that it does not color George and it is not a kind of a Gawain hold is wrong.; sent24 -> int6: the fact that the brass does not color George and is not a kind of a Gawain is incorrect if it does daydream.; sent23 -> int7: the brass daydreams if it does not oversleep lightness.; sent20 -> int8: the brass does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and is submissive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the posturer is not a kind of a religion and/or oversleeps PC. ; $context$ = sent1: the hajji finalizes Cimarron. sent2: the fact that the posturer does oversleep PC is wrong if the hajji is not a condensation. sent3: the hajji is ectomorphic. sent4: the posturer does not oversleep PC. sent5: The Cimarron finalizes hajji. sent6: if the brass is obligational it does not genuflect banger and is submissive. sent7: if that something is a dummy but it does not oversleep gook is false then it is a condensation. sent8: if the posturer finalizes Cimarron and it is a kind of a condensation then it does not oversleep PC. sent9: if something is both ectomorphic and a religion it does not finalize Cimarron. sent10: the hajji does not oversleep PC. sent11: if the brass is a Jabalpur then the banger is a Jabalpur. sent12: if something oversleeps PC the fact that it does not finalize Cimarron and/or colors styrax is not correct. sent13: if the Cimarron is not a foxtail that the spa is a dummy and does not oversleep gook is not correct. sent14: if that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect it is a Jabalpur. sent15: that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. sent16: that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. sent17: the fact that the Cimarron is not a kind of a foxtail if the banger is a Jabalpur is not false. sent18: the khesari is a kind of a watercolor and is a religion. sent19: the posturer is a fulmination. sent20: something does not oversleep lightness if it does not genuflect banger and it is submissive. sent21: the posturer oversleeps PC if the spa is a kind of a condensation. sent22: the posturer is a condensation. sent23: something does daydream if it does not oversleep lightness. sent24: the fact that something does not color George and it is not a Gawain is incorrect if it daydreams. ; $proof$ = | sent16 -> int1: the hajji is not a kind of a condensation if it is ectomorphic and does finalize Cimarron.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the hajji is ectomorphic and it finalizes Cimarron.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hajji is not a condensation.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that if something is ectomorphic and finalizes Cimarron then it is not a condensation is not false. | [
"the hajji is ectomorphic.",
"the hajji finalizes Cimarron.",
"that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong."
] | [
"A condensation is not false if something is close to Cimarron.",
"A condensation is not false if something is close to the truth.",
"If something is close to Cimarron then it is not a condensation."
] | If something is close to Cimarron then it is not a condensation. | that the posturer is not a kind of a religion or oversleeps PC or both is incorrect if that the hajji is not a condensation is not wrong. |
the at is not Levantine. | sent1: if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine. sent2: the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. sent3: the cosy is a kind of a banderillero and does genuflect fig-bird if the at does not finalize incomprehension. sent4: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric. sent5: there is something such that it is not a prepayment. sent6: there is something such that it is not meaty. sent7: the at genuflects fig-bird if the cosy does genuflects fig-bird. sent8: if something does genuflect fig-bird then the fact that it is photometric and it is not Levantine does not hold. sent9: something is a Levantine if it genuflects fig-bird. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{AQ}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent7: {A}{a} -> {A}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AB}x & ¬{B}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x | [
"sent2 -> int1: there are non-meaty and non-photometric things.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the at is Levantine. | {B}{b} | 6 | [
"sent9 -> int3: if the at does genuflect fig-bird it is a kind of a Levantine.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the at is not Levantine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine. sent2: the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. sent3: the cosy is a kind of a banderillero and does genuflect fig-bird if the at does not finalize incomprehension. sent4: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric. sent5: there is something such that it is not a prepayment. sent6: there is something such that it is not meaty. sent7: the at genuflects fig-bird if the cosy does genuflects fig-bird. sent8: if something does genuflect fig-bird then the fact that it is photometric and it is not Levantine does not hold. sent9: something is a Levantine if it genuflects fig-bird. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: there are non-meaty and non-photometric things.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. | [
"the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric.",
"if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine."
] | [
"The ordinary is not photometric.",
"The ordinary is not a photometric thing."
] | The ordinary is not photometric. | the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric. |
the at is not Levantine. | sent1: if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine. sent2: the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. sent3: the cosy is a kind of a banderillero and does genuflect fig-bird if the at does not finalize incomprehension. sent4: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric. sent5: there is something such that it is not a prepayment. sent6: there is something such that it is not meaty. sent7: the at genuflects fig-bird if the cosy does genuflects fig-bird. sent8: if something does genuflect fig-bird then the fact that it is photometric and it is not Levantine does not hold. sent9: something is a Levantine if it genuflects fig-bird. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{AQ}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent7: {A}{a} -> {A}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AB}x & ¬{B}x) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x | [
"sent2 -> int1: there are non-meaty and non-photometric things.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the at is Levantine. | {B}{b} | 6 | [
"sent9 -> int3: if the at does genuflect fig-bird it is a kind of a Levantine.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the at is not Levantine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine. sent2: the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. sent3: the cosy is a kind of a banderillero and does genuflect fig-bird if the at does not finalize incomprehension. sent4: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric. sent5: there is something such that it is not a prepayment. sent6: there is something such that it is not meaty. sent7: the at genuflects fig-bird if the cosy does genuflects fig-bird. sent8: if something does genuflect fig-bird then the fact that it is photometric and it is not Levantine does not hold. sent9: something is a Levantine if it genuflects fig-bird. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: there are non-meaty and non-photometric things.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the ordinary is not meaty and it is not photometric. | [
"the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird if something is not meaty and it is non-photometric.",
"if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine."
] | [
"The ordinary is not photometric.",
"The ordinary is not a photometric thing."
] | The ordinary is not a photometric thing. | if the cosy does not genuflect fig-bird the at is not a Levantine. |
the latch is mechanical. | sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. | {D}{b} | sent1: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: ({BC}{bu} & ¬{C}{bu}) sent9: ¬{B}{fp} sent10: {AB}{b} -> ({AI}{b} & ¬{AJ}{b}) sent11: {A}{b} sent12: ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent15: ¬{C}{b} sent16: (Ex): (¬{JI}x v {FN}x) sent17: ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent18: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent20: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent21: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent22: ({AG}{ga} & ¬{BR}{ga}) | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the latch is mechanical. | {D}{b} | 7 | [
"sent18 -> int4: the fact that the latch is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime is not true if it is a kind of a backhoe.; sent5 -> int5: the dichroism is a backhoe and it oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the latch is mechanical. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. ; $proof$ = | sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. | [
"the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold.",
"something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap.",
"the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe."
] | [
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it'",
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's",
"It's true that something doesn't genuflect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that"
] | It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it' | the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. |
the latch is mechanical. | sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. | {D}{b} | sent1: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: ({BC}{bu} & ¬{C}{bu}) sent9: ¬{B}{fp} sent10: {AB}{b} -> ({AI}{b} & ¬{AJ}{b}) sent11: {A}{b} sent12: ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent15: ¬{C}{b} sent16: (Ex): (¬{JI}x v {FN}x) sent17: ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent18: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent20: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent21: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent22: ({AG}{ga} & ¬{BR}{ga}) | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the latch is mechanical. | {D}{b} | 7 | [
"sent18 -> int4: the fact that the latch is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime is not true if it is a kind of a backhoe.; sent5 -> int5: the dichroism is a backhoe and it oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the latch is mechanical. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. ; $proof$ = | sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. | [
"the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold.",
"something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap.",
"the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe."
] | [
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it'",
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's",
"It's true that something doesn't genuflect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that"
] | It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's | something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. |
the latch is mechanical. | sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. | {D}{b} | sent1: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: ({BC}{bu} & ¬{C}{bu}) sent9: ¬{B}{fp} sent10: {AB}{b} -> ({AI}{b} & ¬{AJ}{b}) sent11: {A}{b} sent12: ({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent15: ¬{C}{b} sent16: (Ex): (¬{JI}x v {FN}x) sent17: ({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent18: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent20: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent21: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent22: ({AG}{ga} & ¬{BR}{ga}) | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent19 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the latch is mechanical. | {D}{b} | 7 | [
"sent18 -> int4: the fact that the latch is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime is not true if it is a kind of a backhoe.; sent5 -> int5: the dichroism is a backhoe and it oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the latch is mechanical. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a backhoe or it is mechanical or both. sent2: the fact that the dichroism is a snowcap hold if there exists something such that it is undemonstrative. sent3: something is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent4: the dichroism is not a kind of a backhoe. sent5: something is a backhoe that oversleeps pulchritude if it is not anadromous. sent6: the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold. sent7: something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap. sent8: the sake is a compromise but it is not a backhoe. sent9: that the reciter is not a birdlime is not wrong. sent10: if the latch is undemonstrative that it finalizes peba and is not a acarine is not false. sent11: the latch is a kind of a snowcap. sent12: the dichroism is not a backhoe if the latch is a birdlime but it is not mechanical. sent13: if the dichroism is a kind of a snowcap then it is not a kind of a backhoe. sent14: there is something such that it does genuflect limekiln and/or it is undemonstrative. sent15: the latch is not a backhoe. sent16: something does not genuflect vibration or does oversleep caber or both. sent17: the dichroism is mechanical but it is not a backhoe. sent18: that something is a snowcap but it is not a birdlime does not hold if it is a backhoe. sent19: that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. sent20: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is both a birdlime and a backhoe. sent21: the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. sent22: the curio does genuflect GHRF and is not a agateware. ; $proof$ = | sent19 & sent6 -> int1: the dichroism is a snowcap.; sent7 -> int2: the dichroism is a birdlime and is not a backhoe if it is a snowcap.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dichroism is a birdlime but it is not a kind of a backhoe.; int3 & sent21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something does not genuflect limekiln or is undemonstrative or both is true. | [
"the dichroism is a snowcap if that either something does not genuflect limekiln or it is not demonstrative or both hold.",
"something is a birdlime and is not a kind of a backhoe if it is a snowcap.",
"the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe."
] | [
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it'",
"It's true that something doesn't affect limekiln, or it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's",
"It's true that something doesn't genuflect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that"
] | It's true that something doesn't genuflect limekiln, or that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that it's true that | the latch is not mechanical if the dichroism is a birdlime that is not a kind of a backhoe. |
the esmolol is not a napery. | sent1: the esmolol is a teeoff if there is something such that it is not a kind of a glyptography. sent2: something is a Squatinidae. sent3: if there is something such that it does not color thoracotomy then the fact that that the esmolol is not a kind of a napery is right is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does not finalize Rhincodon. sent5: something does not color Caelum if it is not a kind of a napery and does not color thoracotomy. sent6: there exists something such that it does not color thoracotomy. sent7: there is something such that it is not a napery. sent8: there exists something such that it is a napery. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of an exhalation the esmolol colors Guernsey. | ¬{B}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{BU}x -> {DO}{a} sent2: (Ex): {EJ}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{DU}x sent5: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{GP}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent8: (Ex): {B}x sent9: (x): ¬{DT}x -> {FQ}{a} | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | there exists something such that the fact that it does not color Caelum hold. | (Ex): ¬{GP}x | 5 | [
"sent5 -> int1: the esmolol does not color Caelum if it is not a napery and does not color thoracotomy.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the esmolol is not a napery. ; $context$ = sent1: the esmolol is a teeoff if there is something such that it is not a kind of a glyptography. sent2: something is a Squatinidae. sent3: if there is something such that it does not color thoracotomy then the fact that that the esmolol is not a kind of a napery is right is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does not finalize Rhincodon. sent5: something does not color Caelum if it is not a kind of a napery and does not color thoracotomy. sent6: there exists something such that it does not color thoracotomy. sent7: there is something such that it is not a napery. sent8: there exists something such that it is a napery. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of an exhalation the esmolol colors Guernsey. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it does not color thoracotomy. | [
"if there is something such that it does not color thoracotomy then the fact that that the esmolol is not a kind of a napery is right is not correct."
] | [
"there exists something such that it does not color thoracotomy."
] | there exists something such that it does not color thoracotomy. | if there is something such that it does not color thoracotomy then the fact that that the esmolol is not a kind of a napery is right is not correct. |