Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the technocrat finalizes Rubia and it is vulpine.

sent1: something is intuitionist. sent2: the burro genuflects krypton and is not vulpine. sent3: if the fact that the haunch is not a kind of a stinkpot and does not genuflect krypton does not hold then the burro genuflect krypton. sent4: the burro genuflects krypton. sent5: the burro does genuflect krypton and does not finalize Rubia. sent6: the technocrat is infinitival. sent7: the technocrat is not diaphyseal. sent8: if there exists something such that it is intuitionist the burro is a shortlist and is diaphyseal. sent9: if something does finalize Rubia it does brood and it is not ceramic. sent10: the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal. sent11: the technocrat is vulpine if the burro does genuflect krypton and is not vulpine. sent12: if the burro is diaphyseal and it does genuflect krypton then the technocrat is not diaphyseal.

({A}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {I}x sent2: ({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: ({E}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {AL}{a} sent7: ¬{B}{a} sent8: (x): {I}x -> ({H}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({IB}x & ¬{JC}x) sent10: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent12: ({B}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the Uruguayan is a brood and not a ceramic.

({IB}{u} & ¬{JC}{u})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the technocrat finalizes Rubia and it is vulpine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is intuitionist. sent2: the burro genuflects krypton and is not vulpine. sent3: if the fact that the haunch is not a kind of a stinkpot and does not genuflect krypton does not hold then the burro genuflect krypton. sent4: the burro genuflects krypton. sent5: the burro does genuflect krypton and does not finalize Rubia. sent6: the technocrat is infinitival. sent7: the technocrat is not diaphyseal. sent8: if there exists something such that it is intuitionist the burro is a shortlist and is diaphyseal. sent9: if something does finalize Rubia it does brood and it is not ceramic. sent10: the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal. sent11: the technocrat is vulpine if the burro does genuflect krypton and is not vulpine. sent12: if the burro is diaphyseal and it does genuflect krypton then the technocrat is not diaphyseal. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the technocrat does finalize Rubia.; sent11 & sent2 -> int2: the technocrat is vulpine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal.

Rubia is not diaphyseal.

the technocrat is vulpine if the burro does genuflect krypton and is not vulpine.

the technocrat finalizes Rubia and it is vulpine.

sent1: something is intuitionist. sent2: the burro genuflects krypton and is not vulpine. sent3: if the fact that the haunch is not a kind of a stinkpot and does not genuflect krypton does not hold then the burro genuflect krypton. sent4: the burro genuflects krypton. sent5: the burro does genuflect krypton and does not finalize Rubia. sent6: the technocrat is infinitival. sent7: the technocrat is not diaphyseal. sent8: if there exists something such that it is intuitionist the burro is a shortlist and is diaphyseal. sent9: if something does finalize Rubia it does brood and it is not ceramic. sent10: the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal. sent11: the technocrat is vulpine if the burro does genuflect krypton and is not vulpine. sent12: if the burro is diaphyseal and it does genuflect krypton then the technocrat is not diaphyseal.

({A}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: (Ex): {I}x sent2: ({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: ({E}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {AL}{a} sent7: ¬{B}{a} sent8: (x): {I}x -> ({H}{b} & {B}{b}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({IB}x & ¬{JC}x) sent10: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent12: ({B}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the Uruguayan is a brood and not a ceramic.

({IB}{u} & ¬{JC}{u})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the technocrat finalizes Rubia and it is vulpine. ; $context$ = sent1: something is intuitionist. sent2: the burro genuflects krypton and is not vulpine. sent3: if the fact that the haunch is not a kind of a stinkpot and does not genuflect krypton does not hold then the burro genuflect krypton. sent4: the burro genuflects krypton. sent5: the burro does genuflect krypton and does not finalize Rubia. sent6: the technocrat is infinitival. sent7: the technocrat is not diaphyseal. sent8: if there exists something such that it is intuitionist the burro is a shortlist and is diaphyseal. sent9: if something does finalize Rubia it does brood and it is not ceramic. sent10: the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal. sent11: the technocrat is vulpine if the burro does genuflect krypton and is not vulpine. sent12: if the burro is diaphyseal and it does genuflect krypton then the technocrat is not diaphyseal. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the technocrat does finalize Rubia.; sent11 & sent2 -> int2: the technocrat is vulpine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the technocrat finalizes Rubia but it is not diaphyseal.

Rubia is not diaphyseal according to the technocrat.

the burro genuflects krypton and is not vulpine.

the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold.

sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: that the monster colors senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the monster does not concord is right.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the monster does not concord.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the monster does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the monster is not a Emmanthe if it does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

If it does not hold, it is not color senatorship.

there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct.

the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold.

sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: that the monster colors senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the monster does not concord is right.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the monster does not concord.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the monster does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the monster is not a Emmanthe if it does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

If it doesn't hold, it's not color senatorship.

the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold.

the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold.

sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

¬{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the monster is not a kind of a Emmanthe hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true. sent2: there exists something such that that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon hold is not correct. sent3: the monster does not concord if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Verrazano and does not color autochthon does not hold. sent4: something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: that the monster colors senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the monster does not concord is right.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the monster does not concord.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the monster does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the monster is not a Emmanthe if it does color senatorship and is not amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does color senatorship but it is not amphitheatric if the fact that it does not concord hold.

If something doesn't hold, it's not color senatorship.

if something that colors senatorship is not amphitheatric that it is not a kind of a Emmanthe is true.

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right.

sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬{AD}{ac} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{BS}x & {AL}x) -> {JA}x sent3: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent4: {A}{el} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ¬{E}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent14: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it is a plant is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the subcompact does plant if that it is not a kind of a microvolt and does finalize sonnet does not hold.; sent12 -> int2: that the subcompact is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact plants.; sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the subcompact glances and/or is incompressible.; sent13 -> int5: if the subcompact is a kind of a glance then it finalizes foolscap.; sent3 -> int6: if the subcompact is incompressible it does finalize foolscap.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the subcompact does finalize foolscap.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct.

The sonnet is not correct if it is not a microvolt.

there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet.

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right.

sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬{AD}{ac} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{BS}x & {AL}x) -> {JA}x sent3: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent4: {A}{el} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ¬{E}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent14: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it is a plant is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the subcompact does plant if that it is not a kind of a microvolt and does finalize sonnet does not hold.; sent12 -> int2: that the subcompact is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact plants.; sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the subcompact glances and/or is incompressible.; sent13 -> int5: if the subcompact is a kind of a glance then it finalizes foolscap.; sent3 -> int6: if the subcompact is incompressible it does finalize foolscap.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the subcompact does finalize foolscap.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct.

It's not correct if it's not a microvolt and it's not a sonnet.

the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right.

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right.

sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬{AD}{ac} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{BS}x & {AL}x) -> {JA}x sent3: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent4: {A}{el} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ¬{E}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent14: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it is a plant is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the subcompact does plant if that it is not a kind of a microvolt and does finalize sonnet does not hold.; sent12 -> int2: that the subcompact is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact plants.; sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the subcompact glances and/or is incompressible.; sent13 -> int5: if the subcompact is a kind of a glance then it finalizes foolscap.; sent3 -> int6: if the subcompact is incompressible it does finalize foolscap.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the subcompact does finalize foolscap.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct.

It is not correct if it is not a microvolt.

the subcompact does not genuflect Hani.

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right.

sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬{AD}{ac} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{BS}x & {AL}x) -> {JA}x sent3: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent4: {A}{el} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ¬{E}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent14: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it is a plant is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the subcompact does plant if that it is not a kind of a microvolt and does finalize sonnet does not hold.; sent12 -> int2: that the subcompact is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact plants.; sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the subcompact glances and/or is incompressible.; sent13 -> int5: if the subcompact is a kind of a glance then it finalizes foolscap.; sent3 -> int6: if the subcompact is incompressible it does finalize foolscap.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the subcompact does finalize foolscap.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct.

It is not correct if that is not a microvolt.

that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false.

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right.

sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: ¬{AD}{ac} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{BS}x & {AL}x) -> {JA}x sent3: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent4: {A}{el} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: ¬{E}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent10: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({D}{aa} v {C}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent14: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it is a plant is not correct.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the subcompact does finalize foolscap and it plants is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: The Hani does not genuflect subcompact. sent2: something genuflects believer if that it is not desirous and it collapses is wrong. sent3: something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong. sent4: the underseller does finalize foolscap. sent5: something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct. sent6: the subcompact does not genuflect Hani. sent7: something is a plant if it does not finalize sonnet. sent8: the fact that the subcompact is not a impracticability but it is incompressible is not correct. sent9: if the fact that the subcompact does not finalize sonnet hold it is a plant. sent10: the subcompact is a glance or it is incompressible or both if the fact that it does not genuflect Hani is right. sent11: if something does not glance that it is non-incompressible thing that does finalize foolscap is wrong. sent12: there exists nothing that is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet. sent13: that something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is a glance is not wrong is not false. sent14: that the bondholder does not finalize foolscap if that the Trilby is not incompressible but it finalize foolscap is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the subcompact does plant if that it is not a kind of a microvolt and does finalize sonnet does not hold.; sent12 -> int2: that the subcompact is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact plants.; sent10 & sent6 -> int4: the subcompact glances and/or is incompressible.; sent13 -> int5: if the subcompact is a kind of a glance then it finalizes foolscap.; sent3 -> int6: if the subcompact is incompressible it does finalize foolscap.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the subcompact does finalize foolscap.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something plants if that it is not a microvolt and finalizes sonnet is not correct.

It is not correct to say something plants if it is not a microvolt.

something does finalize foolscap if the fact that it is incompressible is not wrong.

the debutante is not a kind of a scald.

sent1: the liniment is not a kind of a stretching and is a reallocation. sent2: something is not a scald if it is postmillennial a threaded. sent3: if the liniment is not a stretching and is a reallocation then it is not a single. sent4: that the afterbirth is not a scald is correct. sent5: if something is a kind of a threaded then the fact that it does not genuflect limbus and it is not postmillennial is wrong. sent6: the fact that if the evangelist is a kind of a reallocation that the debutante is a stretching hold is true. sent7: if the debutante is a stretching it is a threaded and not single. sent8: the debutante is not a kind of a threaded. sent9: if something is a kind of postmillennial thing that does genuflect limbus then the fact that it is not a scald is right. sent10: the kaleidoscope is postmillennial and it is a kind of a millenarian. sent11: the evangelist is not a kind of a single. sent12: the evangelist is postmillennial. sent13: the printing is postmillennial. sent14: if the frank is not a single or not a scald or both the fact that it does not thread is not wrong. sent15: The fact that the limbus does genuflect evangelist is right. sent16: the debutante does not thread if the evangelist does not scald. sent17: the fact that the evangelist does genuflect limbus is right. sent18: the evangelist is acquisitive. sent19: the evangelist does not scald if it is a reallocation and it is not a stretching. sent20: if a postmillennial thing does genuflect limbus then it is not a threaded. sent21: the debutante is not a kind of a scald if it is postmillennial and it genuflects limbus.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: (¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent4: ¬{D}{dh} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: {G}{a} -> {F}{b} sent7: {F}{b} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬{C}{b} sent9: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ({A}{ip} & {EL}{ip}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{ge} sent14: (¬{E}{r} v ¬{D}{r}) -> ¬{C}{r} sent15: {AA}{aa} sent16: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent17: {B}{a} sent18: {EJ}{a} sent19: ({G}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent20: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent21: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the debutante is a scald.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the debutante is not a kind of a scald. ; $context$ = sent1: the liniment is not a kind of a stretching and is a reallocation. sent2: something is not a scald if it is postmillennial a threaded. sent3: if the liniment is not a stretching and is a reallocation then it is not a single. sent4: that the afterbirth is not a scald is correct. sent5: if something is a kind of a threaded then the fact that it does not genuflect limbus and it is not postmillennial is wrong. sent6: the fact that if the evangelist is a kind of a reallocation that the debutante is a stretching hold is true. sent7: if the debutante is a stretching it is a threaded and not single. sent8: the debutante is not a kind of a threaded. sent9: if something is a kind of postmillennial thing that does genuflect limbus then the fact that it is not a scald is right. sent10: the kaleidoscope is postmillennial and it is a kind of a millenarian. sent11: the evangelist is not a kind of a single. sent12: the evangelist is postmillennial. sent13: the printing is postmillennial. sent14: if the frank is not a single or not a scald or both the fact that it does not thread is not wrong. sent15: The fact that the limbus does genuflect evangelist is right. sent16: the debutante does not thread if the evangelist does not scald. sent17: the fact that the evangelist does genuflect limbus is right. sent18: the evangelist is acquisitive. sent19: the evangelist does not scald if it is a reallocation and it is not a stretching. sent20: if a postmillennial thing does genuflect limbus then it is not a threaded. sent21: the debutante is not a kind of a scald if it is postmillennial and it genuflects limbus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the evangelist is postmillennial.

The person who preaches is postmillennial.

the fact that the evangelist does genuflect limbus is right.

the debutante is not a kind of a scald.

sent1: the liniment is not a kind of a stretching and is a reallocation. sent2: something is not a scald if it is postmillennial a threaded. sent3: if the liniment is not a stretching and is a reallocation then it is not a single. sent4: that the afterbirth is not a scald is correct. sent5: if something is a kind of a threaded then the fact that it does not genuflect limbus and it is not postmillennial is wrong. sent6: the fact that if the evangelist is a kind of a reallocation that the debutante is a stretching hold is true. sent7: if the debutante is a stretching it is a threaded and not single. sent8: the debutante is not a kind of a threaded. sent9: if something is a kind of postmillennial thing that does genuflect limbus then the fact that it is not a scald is right. sent10: the kaleidoscope is postmillennial and it is a kind of a millenarian. sent11: the evangelist is not a kind of a single. sent12: the evangelist is postmillennial. sent13: the printing is postmillennial. sent14: if the frank is not a single or not a scald or both the fact that it does not thread is not wrong. sent15: The fact that the limbus does genuflect evangelist is right. sent16: the debutante does not thread if the evangelist does not scald. sent17: the fact that the evangelist does genuflect limbus is right. sent18: the evangelist is acquisitive. sent19: the evangelist does not scald if it is a reallocation and it is not a stretching. sent20: if a postmillennial thing does genuflect limbus then it is not a threaded. sent21: the debutante is not a kind of a scald if it is postmillennial and it genuflects limbus.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: (¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent3: (¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent4: ¬{D}{dh} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: {G}{a} -> {F}{b} sent7: {F}{b} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent8: ¬{C}{b} sent9: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ({A}{ip} & {EL}{ip}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {A}{ge} sent14: (¬{E}{r} v ¬{D}{r}) -> ¬{C}{r} sent15: {AA}{aa} sent16: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent17: {B}{a} sent18: {EJ}{a} sent19: ({G}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent20: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent21: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the debutante is a scald.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the debutante is not a kind of a scald. ; $context$ = sent1: the liniment is not a kind of a stretching and is a reallocation. sent2: something is not a scald if it is postmillennial a threaded. sent3: if the liniment is not a stretching and is a reallocation then it is not a single. sent4: that the afterbirth is not a scald is correct. sent5: if something is a kind of a threaded then the fact that it does not genuflect limbus and it is not postmillennial is wrong. sent6: the fact that if the evangelist is a kind of a reallocation that the debutante is a stretching hold is true. sent7: if the debutante is a stretching it is a threaded and not single. sent8: the debutante is not a kind of a threaded. sent9: if something is a kind of postmillennial thing that does genuflect limbus then the fact that it is not a scald is right. sent10: the kaleidoscope is postmillennial and it is a kind of a millenarian. sent11: the evangelist is not a kind of a single. sent12: the evangelist is postmillennial. sent13: the printing is postmillennial. sent14: if the frank is not a single or not a scald or both the fact that it does not thread is not wrong. sent15: The fact that the limbus does genuflect evangelist is right. sent16: the debutante does not thread if the evangelist does not scald. sent17: the fact that the evangelist does genuflect limbus is right. sent18: the evangelist is acquisitive. sent19: the evangelist does not scald if it is a reallocation and it is not a stretching. sent20: if a postmillennial thing does genuflect limbus then it is not a threaded. sent21: the debutante is not a kind of a scald if it is postmillennial and it genuflects limbus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the evangelist is postmillennial.

The person who preaches is a postmillennial.

if a postmillennial thing does genuflect limbus then it is not a threaded.

the fact that the genuflecting construction happens is not wrong.

sent1: if that the fact that the grounding occurs but the endowment does not occur is wrong is right then the grounding does not occur. sent2: the finalizing Hebbel happens if the finalizing racing occurs. sent3: if the grounding does not occur then not the finalizing enamel but the inserting happens. sent4: that the goring occurs is true. sent5: the armament occurs. sent6: that the enthroning occurs is correct. sent7: the genuflecting construction happens if the Platonicness occurs. sent8: the unawareness and the finalizing daintiness happens if the finalizing enamel does not occur. sent9: if the measuring occurs then the gore does not occur. sent10: the penumbralness happens and the bicker happens. sent11: the nonrandomness happens and the conductance happens. sent12: that the framing happens prevents that the unlawfulness does not occur. sent13: the fact that the grounds but not the endowment occurs is false. sent14: both the anadromousness and the measure happens if the finalizing chopsteak does not occur. sent15: that the unawareness occurs and the gore does not occur prevents the Platonicness. sent16: the foliateness prevents that the spousalness does not occur. sent17: the butterfly occurs. sent18: that if the unlawfulness occurs then the genuflecting scrum does not occur and the finalizing chopsteak does not occur is not incorrect. sent19: that the genuflecting construction does not occur is caused by that the Platonicness does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬({K} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{K} sent2: {DS} -> {IG} sent3: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent4: {B} sent5: {AS} sent6: {CC} sent7: {A} -> {C} sent8: ¬{I} -> ({D} & {F}) sent9: {E} -> ¬{B} sent10: ({BM} & {JK}) sent11: ({FR} & {DU}) sent12: {N} -> {M} sent13: ¬({K} & ¬{P}) sent14: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {E}) sent15: ({D} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent16: {IS} -> {GO} sent17: {CQ} sent18: {M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{H}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the genuflecting construction does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the genuflecting construction happens is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the grounding occurs but the endowment does not occur is wrong is right then the grounding does not occur. sent2: the finalizing Hebbel happens if the finalizing racing occurs. sent3: if the grounding does not occur then not the finalizing enamel but the inserting happens. sent4: that the goring occurs is true. sent5: the armament occurs. sent6: that the enthroning occurs is correct. sent7: the genuflecting construction happens if the Platonicness occurs. sent8: the unawareness and the finalizing daintiness happens if the finalizing enamel does not occur. sent9: if the measuring occurs then the gore does not occur. sent10: the penumbralness happens and the bicker happens. sent11: the nonrandomness happens and the conductance happens. sent12: that the framing happens prevents that the unlawfulness does not occur. sent13: the fact that the grounds but not the endowment occurs is false. sent14: both the anadromousness and the measure happens if the finalizing chopsteak does not occur. sent15: that the unawareness occurs and the gore does not occur prevents the Platonicness. sent16: the foliateness prevents that the spousalness does not occur. sent17: the butterfly occurs. sent18: that if the unlawfulness occurs then the genuflecting scrum does not occur and the finalizing chopsteak does not occur is not incorrect. sent19: that the genuflecting construction does not occur is caused by that the Platonicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the foliateness prevents that the spousalness does not occur.

the foliateness prevents that the spousalness does not occur.

that the enthroning occurs is correct.

the subcompact is inexcusable.

sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian.

{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (¬{BR}{dd} & ¬{AA}{dd}) -> ¬{AK}{dd} sent4: (¬{JI}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent5: ¬({C}{a} & {FN}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{AA}x sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {E}x) sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{C}{et} sent12: ¬{C}{gk}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the subcompact is inexcusable.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subcompact is inexcusable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the subcompact is not interlinear.; sent10 -> int2: if the subcompact is not interlinear then the fact that it is an expert and does genuflect Nigerian does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the subcompact is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is false.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that the subcompact is an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not true it is not inexcusable.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false.

If the subcompact is non-pectic, it is not false.

the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache.

the subcompact is inexcusable.

sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian.

{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (¬{BR}{dd} & ¬{AA}{dd}) -> ¬{AK}{dd} sent4: (¬{JI}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent5: ¬({C}{a} & {FN}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{AA}x sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {E}x) sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{C}{et} sent12: ¬{C}{gk}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the subcompact is inexcusable.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subcompact is inexcusable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the subcompact is not interlinear.; sent10 -> int2: if the subcompact is not interlinear then the fact that it is an expert and does genuflect Nigerian does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the subcompact is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is false.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that the subcompact is an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not true it is not inexcusable.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false.

If the subcompact is a non-pectic thing, it is not false.

that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear.

the subcompact is inexcusable.

sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian.

{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (¬{BR}{dd} & ¬{AA}{dd}) -> ¬{AK}{dd} sent4: (¬{JI}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent5: ¬({C}{a} & {FN}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{AA}x sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {E}x) sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{C}{et} sent12: ¬{C}{gk}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the subcompact is inexcusable.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subcompact is inexcusable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable. sent2: if the fact that something is interlinear and it is inexcusable is incorrect then it is not pectic. sent3: if the NMR is both not a Castillian and not pectic it is not branchy. sent4: the subcompact is not afferent and not pectic. sent5: that the subcompact genuflects Nigerian and is pancreatic is not right. sent6: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then it is non-pectic. sent7: the subcompact is not pectic and it does not genuflect huisache. sent8: if something does not genuflect Nigerian then the fact that it is interlinear thing that is tasteless is false. sent9: that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false. sent10: that something is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is wrong if it is not interlinear. sent11: the butty does not genuflect Nigerian. sent12: the diastema does not genuflect Nigerian. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the subcompact is not interlinear.; sent10 -> int2: if the subcompact is not interlinear then the fact that it is an expert and does genuflect Nigerian does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the subcompact is an expert and it does genuflect Nigerian is false.; sent1 -> int4: if the fact that the subcompact is an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not true it is not inexcusable.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the subcompact is not interlinear if the subcompact is non-pectic thing that does not genuflect huisache is not false.

If the subcompact is non-pectic, it's not false.

if the fact that something is a kind of an expert that genuflects Nigerian is not right it is excusable.

the recalculation happens.

sent1: the fact that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur does not hold if the enforcement happens. sent2: the recalculation is prevented by that the nonabsorbentness does not occur. sent3: the finalizing sharpness does not occur. sent4: if that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur is not correct then the fact that the nonabsorbentness does not occur is correct. sent5: that the genuflecting giant occurs and the genuflecting setup happens does not hold if the parliamentariness does not occur. sent6: if the finalizing sharpness occurs that not the perfection but the haggling happens is not true. sent7: not the disbandment but the RF happens if the freelancing does not occur. sent8: if the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs then the bibliopolicness does not occur. sent9: that the parliamentariness occurs is prevented by that the administrativeness does not occur but the nightwork occurs. sent10: both the non-administrativeness and the nightwork occurs if the road occurs. sent11: if that both the genuflecting giant and the genuflecting setup occurs does not hold then the genuflecting setup does not occur. sent12: that the genuflecting setup does not occur triggers that the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs. sent13: the non-bibliopolicness and/or that the freelanceness does not occur brings about the freelancenessness. sent14: if the quiver occurs the enforcement occurs. sent15: the perfection occurs. sent16: the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur. sent17: that the nonabsorbentness does not occur triggers that the penetration and the recalculation happens. sent18: both the quivering and the arboricalness happens if the offside does not occur. sent19: if the disbandment does not occur but the RF occurs then the offsideness does not occur.

{A}

sent1: {E} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{AB} sent4: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & {O}) sent6: {AB} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {U}) sent7: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent8: ({N} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{M} sent9: (¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent10: {T} -> (¬{R} & {S}) sent11: ¬({P} & {O}) -> ¬{O} sent12: ¬{O} -> ({N} & ¬{L}) sent13: (¬{M} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{K} sent14: {F} -> {E} sent15: {AA} sent16: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{B} -> ({DN} & {A}) sent18: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent19: (¬{I} & {J}) -> ¬{H}

PROVED

PROVED

the penetration occurs.

{DN}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recalculation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur does not hold if the enforcement happens. sent2: the recalculation is prevented by that the nonabsorbentness does not occur. sent3: the finalizing sharpness does not occur. sent4: if that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur is not correct then the fact that the nonabsorbentness does not occur is correct. sent5: that the genuflecting giant occurs and the genuflecting setup happens does not hold if the parliamentariness does not occur. sent6: if the finalizing sharpness occurs that not the perfection but the haggling happens is not true. sent7: not the disbandment but the RF happens if the freelancing does not occur. sent8: if the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs then the bibliopolicness does not occur. sent9: that the parliamentariness occurs is prevented by that the administrativeness does not occur but the nightwork occurs. sent10: both the non-administrativeness and the nightwork occurs if the road occurs. sent11: if that both the genuflecting giant and the genuflecting setup occurs does not hold then the genuflecting setup does not occur. sent12: that the genuflecting setup does not occur triggers that the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs. sent13: the non-bibliopolicness and/or that the freelanceness does not occur brings about the freelancenessness. sent14: if the quiver occurs the enforcement occurs. sent15: the perfection occurs. sent16: the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur. sent17: that the nonabsorbentness does not occur triggers that the penetration and the recalculation happens. sent18: both the quivering and the arboricalness happens if the offside does not occur. sent19: if the disbandment does not occur but the RF occurs then the offsideness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recalculation does not occur.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the perfection occurs and the finalizing sharpness does not occur is not true.; sent15 & sent3 -> int2: the perfection happens and the finalizing sharpness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur.

The fact that the final sharpness is not perfect is incorrect.

the perfection occurs.

the recalculation happens.

sent1: the fact that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur does not hold if the enforcement happens. sent2: the recalculation is prevented by that the nonabsorbentness does not occur. sent3: the finalizing sharpness does not occur. sent4: if that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur is not correct then the fact that the nonabsorbentness does not occur is correct. sent5: that the genuflecting giant occurs and the genuflecting setup happens does not hold if the parliamentariness does not occur. sent6: if the finalizing sharpness occurs that not the perfection but the haggling happens is not true. sent7: not the disbandment but the RF happens if the freelancing does not occur. sent8: if the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs then the bibliopolicness does not occur. sent9: that the parliamentariness occurs is prevented by that the administrativeness does not occur but the nightwork occurs. sent10: both the non-administrativeness and the nightwork occurs if the road occurs. sent11: if that both the genuflecting giant and the genuflecting setup occurs does not hold then the genuflecting setup does not occur. sent12: that the genuflecting setup does not occur triggers that the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs. sent13: the non-bibliopolicness and/or that the freelanceness does not occur brings about the freelancenessness. sent14: if the quiver occurs the enforcement occurs. sent15: the perfection occurs. sent16: the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur. sent17: that the nonabsorbentness does not occur triggers that the penetration and the recalculation happens. sent18: both the quivering and the arboricalness happens if the offside does not occur. sent19: if the disbandment does not occur but the RF occurs then the offsideness does not occur.

{A}

sent1: {E} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{AB} sent4: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & {O}) sent6: {AB} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {U}) sent7: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent8: ({N} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{M} sent9: (¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent10: {T} -> (¬{R} & {S}) sent11: ¬({P} & {O}) -> ¬{O} sent12: ¬{O} -> ({N} & ¬{L}) sent13: (¬{M} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{K} sent14: {F} -> {E} sent15: {AA} sent16: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{B} -> ({DN} & {A}) sent18: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent19: (¬{I} & {J}) -> ¬{H}

PROVED

PROVED

the penetration occurs.

{DN}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recalculation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur does not hold if the enforcement happens. sent2: the recalculation is prevented by that the nonabsorbentness does not occur. sent3: the finalizing sharpness does not occur. sent4: if that the genuflecting neatness does not occur and the jumping does not occur is not correct then the fact that the nonabsorbentness does not occur is correct. sent5: that the genuflecting giant occurs and the genuflecting setup happens does not hold if the parliamentariness does not occur. sent6: if the finalizing sharpness occurs that not the perfection but the haggling happens is not true. sent7: not the disbandment but the RF happens if the freelancing does not occur. sent8: if the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs then the bibliopolicness does not occur. sent9: that the parliamentariness occurs is prevented by that the administrativeness does not occur but the nightwork occurs. sent10: both the non-administrativeness and the nightwork occurs if the road occurs. sent11: if that both the genuflecting giant and the genuflecting setup occurs does not hold then the genuflecting setup does not occur. sent12: that the genuflecting setup does not occur triggers that the anticyclone but not the genuflecting LCD occurs. sent13: the non-bibliopolicness and/or that the freelanceness does not occur brings about the freelancenessness. sent14: if the quiver occurs the enforcement occurs. sent15: the perfection occurs. sent16: the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur. sent17: that the nonabsorbentness does not occur triggers that the penetration and the recalculation happens. sent18: both the quivering and the arboricalness happens if the offside does not occur. sent19: if the disbandment does not occur but the RF occurs then the offsideness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recalculation does not occur.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the perfection occurs and the finalizing sharpness does not occur is not true.; sent15 & sent3 -> int2: the perfection happens and the finalizing sharpness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the perfection occurs but the finalizing sharpness does not occur is incorrect if the recalculation does not occur.

The fact that the final sharpness does not occur is incorrect.

the finalizing sharpness does not occur.

the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong.

sent1: the finalizing romper and/or the finalizing turnip occurs. sent2: that the thwack happens and the economicalness does not occur is not true. sent3: if not the saltation but the coloring lysogeny occurs then the thwack does not occur. sent4: the saltation is prevented by the finalizing turnip. sent5: the self-help occurs. sent6: that the ohmicness does not occur and the coloring gesture does not occur is not true. sent7: that the alligator does not occur triggers that the coloring lysogeny and the emitting occurs. sent8: that not the thwack but the economicalness occurs does not hold. sent9: the saltation does not occur if the finalizing romper occurs. sent10: that the da'wah happens is right. sent11: the fact that the coloring lysogeny does not occur and the finalizing world-weariness does not occur is not right. sent12: if the self-help happens the fact that the thwack happens and the economicalness does not occur is not correct. sent13: if the fact that the stumbling occurs hold then the fact that the animatingness does not occur and the weeds does not occur is not right. sent14: the fact that the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong if the self-help occurs is not wrong. sent15: the fact that not the thwack but the economicalness occurs is incorrect if the self-help happens. sent16: the finalizing reverse occurs.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: ({G} v {H}) sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: (¬{B} & {C}) -> ¬{AA} sent4: {H} -> ¬{B} sent5: {A} sent6: ¬(¬{FF} & ¬{DJ}) sent7: ¬{I} -> ({C} & {F}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: {G} -> ¬{B} sent10: {DK} sent11: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{HL}) sent12: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: {AU} -> ¬(¬{FG} & ¬{IE}) sent14: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent15: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent16: {GJ}

PROVED

PROVED

the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the finalizing romper and/or the finalizing turnip occurs. sent2: that the thwack happens and the economicalness does not occur is not true. sent3: if not the saltation but the coloring lysogeny occurs then the thwack does not occur. sent4: the saltation is prevented by the finalizing turnip. sent5: the self-help occurs. sent6: that the ohmicness does not occur and the coloring gesture does not occur is not true. sent7: that the alligator does not occur triggers that the coloring lysogeny and the emitting occurs. sent8: that not the thwack but the economicalness occurs does not hold. sent9: the saltation does not occur if the finalizing romper occurs. sent10: that the da'wah happens is right. sent11: the fact that the coloring lysogeny does not occur and the finalizing world-weariness does not occur is not right. sent12: if the self-help happens the fact that the thwack happens and the economicalness does not occur is not correct. sent13: if the fact that the stumbling occurs hold then the fact that the animatingness does not occur and the weeds does not occur is not right. sent14: the fact that the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong if the self-help occurs is not wrong. sent15: the fact that not the thwack but the economicalness occurs is incorrect if the self-help happens. sent16: the finalizing reverse occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong if the self-help occurs is not wrong.

the fact that the fact that the thwack does not occur and the economicalness does not occur is wrong if the self-help occurs is not wrong.

the self-help occurs.

the unperceptiveness happens.

sent1: if the unionness does not occur the coloring kernite does not occur and the spectroscopy does not occur. sent2: the apposition happens. sent3: the fugalness occurs. sent4: the oversleeping climber happens. sent5: if the coloring kernite does not occur then the intemperance and/or the will happens. sent6: the avoiding and the non-sanitariness occurs. sent7: if the unperceptiveness does not occur that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not true. sent8: the softening happens and the Saturnalia does not occur. sent9: the Methodistsness happens. sent10: if the inoperableness occurs then the undulatoriness but not the dimpling happens. sent11: the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent12: the intemperance occurs. sent13: if the intemperance happens then the genuflecting technetium happens but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent14: the fertilization does not occur. sent15: that the apposition occurs and the plunk does not occur is not correct. sent16: the union happens. sent17: if the specialization occurs then the foreclosure but not the discussion occurs. sent18: the countermine happens. sent19: that the intemperance occurs prevents the oversleeping Plutarch. sent20: if the vulcanizing happens then the action but not the anaphrodisiacness occurs. sent21: that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur. sent22: that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch happens is not right.

{A}

sent1: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent2: {HU} sent3: {HK} sent4: {HC} sent5: ¬{D} -> ({B} v {C}) sent6: ({IM} & ¬{BO}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent8: ({T} & ¬{BE}) sent9: {S} sent10: {GF} -> ({HH} & ¬{FH}) sent11: ¬{AB} sent12: {B} sent13: {B} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{EP} sent15: ¬({HU} & ¬{HA}) sent16: {F} sent17: {EQ} -> ({CU} & ¬{I}) sent18: {AU} sent19: {B} -> ¬{AB} sent20: {CE} -> ({IG} & ¬{AQ}) sent21: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent22: ¬({AA} & {AB})

PROVED

PROVED

the unperceptiveness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unperceptiveness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the unionness does not occur the coloring kernite does not occur and the spectroscopy does not occur. sent2: the apposition happens. sent3: the fugalness occurs. sent4: the oversleeping climber happens. sent5: if the coloring kernite does not occur then the intemperance and/or the will happens. sent6: the avoiding and the non-sanitariness occurs. sent7: if the unperceptiveness does not occur that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not true. sent8: the softening happens and the Saturnalia does not occur. sent9: the Methodistsness happens. sent10: if the inoperableness occurs then the undulatoriness but not the dimpling happens. sent11: the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent12: the intemperance occurs. sent13: if the intemperance happens then the genuflecting technetium happens but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent14: the fertilization does not occur. sent15: that the apposition occurs and the plunk does not occur is not correct. sent16: the union happens. sent17: if the specialization occurs then the foreclosure but not the discussion occurs. sent18: the countermine happens. sent19: that the intemperance occurs prevents the oversleeping Plutarch. sent20: if the vulcanizing happens then the action but not the anaphrodisiacness occurs. sent21: that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur. sent22: that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unperceptiveness does not occur.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: that the genuflecting technetium but not the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not correct.; sent13 & sent12 -> int2: the genuflecting technetium but not the oversleeping Plutarch happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur.

The oversleeping Plutarch is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur.

if the intemperance happens then the genuflecting technetium happens but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur.

the unperceptiveness happens.

sent1: if the unionness does not occur the coloring kernite does not occur and the spectroscopy does not occur. sent2: the apposition happens. sent3: the fugalness occurs. sent4: the oversleeping climber happens. sent5: if the coloring kernite does not occur then the intemperance and/or the will happens. sent6: the avoiding and the non-sanitariness occurs. sent7: if the unperceptiveness does not occur that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not true. sent8: the softening happens and the Saturnalia does not occur. sent9: the Methodistsness happens. sent10: if the inoperableness occurs then the undulatoriness but not the dimpling happens. sent11: the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent12: the intemperance occurs. sent13: if the intemperance happens then the genuflecting technetium happens but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent14: the fertilization does not occur. sent15: that the apposition occurs and the plunk does not occur is not correct. sent16: the union happens. sent17: if the specialization occurs then the foreclosure but not the discussion occurs. sent18: the countermine happens. sent19: that the intemperance occurs prevents the oversleeping Plutarch. sent20: if the vulcanizing happens then the action but not the anaphrodisiacness occurs. sent21: that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur. sent22: that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch happens is not right.

{A}

sent1: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent2: {HU} sent3: {HK} sent4: {HC} sent5: ¬{D} -> ({B} v {C}) sent6: ({IM} & ¬{BO}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent8: ({T} & ¬{BE}) sent9: {S} sent10: {GF} -> ({HH} & ¬{FH}) sent11: ¬{AB} sent12: {B} sent13: {B} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{EP} sent15: ¬({HU} & ¬{HA}) sent16: {F} sent17: {EQ} -> ({CU} & ¬{I}) sent18: {AU} sent19: {B} -> ¬{AB} sent20: {CE} -> ({IG} & ¬{AQ}) sent21: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent22: ¬({AA} & {AB})

PROVED

PROVED

the unperceptiveness does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unperceptiveness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the unionness does not occur the coloring kernite does not occur and the spectroscopy does not occur. sent2: the apposition happens. sent3: the fugalness occurs. sent4: the oversleeping climber happens. sent5: if the coloring kernite does not occur then the intemperance and/or the will happens. sent6: the avoiding and the non-sanitariness occurs. sent7: if the unperceptiveness does not occur that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not true. sent8: the softening happens and the Saturnalia does not occur. sent9: the Methodistsness happens. sent10: if the inoperableness occurs then the undulatoriness but not the dimpling happens. sent11: the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent12: the intemperance occurs. sent13: if the intemperance happens then the genuflecting technetium happens but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur. sent14: the fertilization does not occur. sent15: that the apposition occurs and the plunk does not occur is not correct. sent16: the union happens. sent17: if the specialization occurs then the foreclosure but not the discussion occurs. sent18: the countermine happens. sent19: that the intemperance occurs prevents the oversleeping Plutarch. sent20: if the vulcanizing happens then the action but not the anaphrodisiacness occurs. sent21: that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur. sent22: that the genuflecting technetium and the oversleeping Plutarch happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unperceptiveness does not occur.; sent21 & assump1 -> int1: that the genuflecting technetium but not the oversleeping Plutarch occurs is not correct.; sent13 & sent12 -> int2: the genuflecting technetium but not the oversleeping Plutarch happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the genuflecting technetium occurs but the oversleeping Plutarch does not occur is not true if the unperceptiveness does not occur.

If the unperceptiveness does not occur, the oversleeping Plutarch is not true.

the intemperance occurs.

the crane is occupational.

sent1: the swaggerer finalizes vulcanization. sent2: if there exists something such that it does finalize vulcanization and it is a kind of a syllable the crane is not occupational. sent3: the flow is not impressive and not a revenuer. sent4: the fact that something does finalize vulcanization but it is not a syllable is wrong if it is a tusker. sent5: the jellaba does finalize vulcanization and it is a syllable. sent6: the jellaba does finalize vulcanization. sent7: the jellaba is not a blinded. sent8: the fact that the flow genuflects Montanan but it is not mucopurulent is false if it is serial. sent9: the flow is mucopurulent if that it genuflects Montanan and is not mucopurulent does not hold. sent10: the flow is a serial if it is a kind of unimpressive thing that is not a kind of a revenuer.

{C}{a}

sent1: {A}{gj} sent2: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent3: (¬{H}{hs} & ¬{G}{hs}) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} sent7: ¬{IU}{aa} sent8: {F}{hs} -> ¬({E}{hs} & ¬{FR}{hs}) sent9: ¬({E}{hs} & ¬{FR}{hs}) -> {FR}{hs} sent10: (¬{H}{hs} & ¬{G}{hs}) -> {F}{hs}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the flow is mucopurulent and finalizes vulcanization.

({FR}{hs} & {A}{hs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crane is occupational. ; $context$ = sent1: the swaggerer finalizes vulcanization. sent2: if there exists something such that it does finalize vulcanization and it is a kind of a syllable the crane is not occupational. sent3: the flow is not impressive and not a revenuer. sent4: the fact that something does finalize vulcanization but it is not a syllable is wrong if it is a tusker. sent5: the jellaba does finalize vulcanization and it is a syllable. sent6: the jellaba does finalize vulcanization. sent7: the jellaba is not a blinded. sent8: the fact that the flow genuflects Montanan but it is not mucopurulent is false if it is serial. sent9: the flow is mucopurulent if that it genuflects Montanan and is not mucopurulent does not hold. sent10: the flow is a serial if it is a kind of unimpressive thing that is not a kind of a revenuer. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: something finalizes vulcanization and is a syllable.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the jellaba does finalize vulcanization and it is a syllable.

the jellaba does finalize vulcanization and it is a syllable.

if there exists something such that it does finalize vulcanization and it is a kind of a syllable the crane is not occupational.

the lip is splenic and a horizontal.

sent1: the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic. sent2: the conduit is not an operator if it does not color trumpetwood and/or it is non-euphemistic. sent3: the fact that the lip finalizes turnip and it is a kind of a grudging is wrong if it is not a aleph-null. sent4: the lip is non-fancy or it is not euphemistic or both. sent5: if the lip is not a aleph-null that it is splenic and it is a kind of a horizontal is incorrect.

({C}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (¬{FU}{bg} v ¬{AB}{bg}) -> ¬{FA}{bg} sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({DA}{a} & {FR}{a}) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lip is splenic and a horizontal. ; $context$ = sent1: the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic. sent2: the conduit is not an operator if it does not color trumpetwood and/or it is non-euphemistic. sent3: the fact that the lip finalizes turnip and it is a kind of a grudging is wrong if it is not a aleph-null. sent4: the lip is non-fancy or it is not euphemistic or both. sent5: if the lip is not a aleph-null that it is splenic and it is a kind of a horizontal is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the lip is not a aleph-null.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic.

If the lip is not fancy and not euphemistic, it is not a aleph-null.

the lip is non-fancy or it is not euphemistic or both.

the lip is splenic and a horizontal.

sent1: the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic. sent2: the conduit is not an operator if it does not color trumpetwood and/or it is non-euphemistic. sent3: the fact that the lip finalizes turnip and it is a kind of a grudging is wrong if it is not a aleph-null. sent4: the lip is non-fancy or it is not euphemistic or both. sent5: if the lip is not a aleph-null that it is splenic and it is a kind of a horizontal is incorrect.

({C}{a} & {A}{a})

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: (¬{FU}{bg} v ¬{AB}{bg}) -> ¬{FA}{bg} sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({DA}{a} & {FR}{a}) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lip is splenic and a horizontal. ; $context$ = sent1: the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic. sent2: the conduit is not an operator if it does not color trumpetwood and/or it is non-euphemistic. sent3: the fact that the lip finalizes turnip and it is a kind of a grudging is wrong if it is not a aleph-null. sent4: the lip is non-fancy or it is not euphemistic or both. sent5: if the lip is not a aleph-null that it is splenic and it is a kind of a horizontal is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the lip is not a aleph-null.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lip is not a aleph-null if it is not a fancy and/or it is not euphemistic.

If it is not fancy and not euphemistic, the lip is not a aleph-null.

if the lip is not a aleph-null that it is splenic and it is a kind of a horizontal is incorrect.

the kernite is not prosthodontics and it is not a kind of a Dipylon.

sent1: the Salvadoran is Dantean if the parlor is livable. sent2: the kernite is a kind of a sparkle. sent3: the kernite colors kernite or it does color reeler or both. sent4: something is not prosthodontics if it colors kernite and/or it does color reeler. sent5: the kernite is not choleraic. sent6: there exists something such that that it genuflects Turk's-cap and is not a kiaat does not hold. sent7: if something colors kernite that it is not Dipylon is not false. sent8: the kernite is not an excuse. sent9: the fact that the parlor is livable if there is something such that the fact that it genuflects Agamemnon and genuflects Turk's-cap is not true is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that does genuflect Agamemnon and does genuflect Turk's-cap. sent11: the kernite is not prosthodontics if it does color reeler. sent12: the peafowl does not genuflect Turk's-cap and is a concert-goer. sent13: the kernite is not an excuse but it is Dantean. sent14: the goatsucker is Dipylon. sent15: if the kernite finalizes majors then it is not a Gazella. sent16: the parlor is not livable and does genuflect Agamemnon if it does not genuflect Turk's-cap. sent17: if something is Dantean then that it is an excuse but not Dipylon is false. sent18: something is not prosthodontics if that it colors reeler is not false. sent19: the kernite is not Dipylon if it is an excuse and it is Dantean.

(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa})

sent1: {E}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: {EI}{aa} sent3: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: ¬{DI}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{I}x) sent7: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}x sent8: ¬{C}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> {E}{b} sent10: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) sent11: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (¬{G}{hj} & {IA}{hj}) sent13: (¬{C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent14: {A}{fg} sent15: {FN}{aa} -> ¬{DG}{aa} sent16: ¬{G}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent17: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent18: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent19: ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Turk's-cap is prosthodontics is wrong.

¬{B}{hm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kernite is not prosthodontics and it is not a kind of a Dipylon. ; $context$ = sent1: the Salvadoran is Dantean if the parlor is livable. sent2: the kernite is a kind of a sparkle. sent3: the kernite colors kernite or it does color reeler or both. sent4: something is not prosthodontics if it colors kernite and/or it does color reeler. sent5: the kernite is not choleraic. sent6: there exists something such that that it genuflects Turk's-cap and is not a kiaat does not hold. sent7: if something colors kernite that it is not Dipylon is not false. sent8: the kernite is not an excuse. sent9: the fact that the parlor is livable if there is something such that the fact that it genuflects Agamemnon and genuflects Turk's-cap is not true is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that does genuflect Agamemnon and does genuflect Turk's-cap. sent11: the kernite is not prosthodontics if it does color reeler. sent12: the peafowl does not genuflect Turk's-cap and is a concert-goer. sent13: the kernite is not an excuse but it is Dantean. sent14: the goatsucker is Dipylon. sent15: if the kernite finalizes majors then it is not a Gazella. sent16: the parlor is not livable and does genuflect Agamemnon if it does not genuflect Turk's-cap. sent17: if something is Dantean then that it is an excuse but not Dipylon is false. sent18: something is not prosthodontics if that it colors reeler is not false. sent19: the kernite is not Dipylon if it is an excuse and it is Dantean. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not prosthodontics if it colors kernite and/or it does color reeler.

something is not prosthodontics if it colors kernite and/or it does color reeler.

the kernite colors kernite or it does color reeler or both.

the Statehouse is a kind of a Kentucky.

sent1: the page colors Burundi and it finalizes spiel if the banger is not a cling. sent2: the Statehouse is an enormity if that that either the skua is not a kind of an enormity or it is a Kentucky or both is not right is not wrong. sent3: the skua is an enormity. sent4: the fact that the Statehouse is a Kentucky is true if that the skua is a subscription is correct. sent5: the fact that something is not an enormity and/or it is a Kentucky does not hold if it is not a subscription.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the Statehouse is an enormity is true.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Statehouse is a kind of a Kentucky. ; $context$ = sent1: the page colors Burundi and it finalizes spiel if the banger is not a cling. sent2: the Statehouse is an enormity if that that either the skua is not a kind of an enormity or it is a Kentucky or both is not right is not wrong. sent3: the skua is an enormity. sent4: the fact that the Statehouse is a Kentucky is true if that the skua is a subscription is correct. sent5: the fact that something is not an enormity and/or it is a Kentucky does not hold if it is not a subscription. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Statehouse is a Kentucky is true if that the skua is a subscription is correct.

the fact that the Statehouse is a Kentucky is true if that the skua is a subscription is correct.

the Statehouse is an enormity if that that either the skua is not a kind of an enormity or it is a Kentucky or both is not right is not wrong.

the pornography does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur.

sent1: that the Hunt does not occur and the finalizing enfeoffment occurs is false if the resizing occurs. sent2: if that the bicentennialness happens is not wrong the pornography does not occur. sent3: that the scamper occurs and the coloring NLP does not occur prevents that the flurry happens. sent4: that the scamper does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur leads to that the pornography occurs. sent5: the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur. sent6: if the coloring NLP does not occur that the scamper does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur is correct. sent7: the flurrying happens. sent8: that not the shrugging but the bisontineness occurs is not right. sent9: if the flurry happens that both the bicentennialness and the tickling occurs is false. sent10: the cock-a-doodle-doo occurs. sent11: the fact that the pornography does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur is not right if the flurry does not occur. sent12: the bagatelle happens. sent13: that the popping does not occur but the penetrating occurs is not true if the tapering happens. sent14: the fact that the bicentennial does not occur but the tickle occurs is not true if the flurry occurs. sent15: the fact that that both the bicentennialness and the tickling happens does not hold hold.

(¬{B} & ¬{C})

sent1: {AG} -> ¬(¬{ER} & {HG}) sent2: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent3: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: (¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> {B} sent5: ¬{C} sent6: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{EP} & {DC}) sent9: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent10: {FG} sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent12: {FL} sent13: {JD} -> ¬(¬{CL} & {CP}) sent14: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent15: ¬({AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the pornography does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur is incorrect.

¬(¬{B} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pornography does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Hunt does not occur and the finalizing enfeoffment occurs is false if the resizing occurs. sent2: if that the bicentennialness happens is not wrong the pornography does not occur. sent3: that the scamper occurs and the coloring NLP does not occur prevents that the flurry happens. sent4: that the scamper does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur leads to that the pornography occurs. sent5: the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur. sent6: if the coloring NLP does not occur that the scamper does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur is correct. sent7: the flurrying happens. sent8: that not the shrugging but the bisontineness occurs is not right. sent9: if the flurry happens that both the bicentennialness and the tickling occurs is false. sent10: the cock-a-doodle-doo occurs. sent11: the fact that the pornography does not occur and the finalizing Pepto-bismal does not occur is not right if the flurry does not occur. sent12: the bagatelle happens. sent13: that the popping does not occur but the penetrating occurs is not true if the tapering happens. sent14: the fact that the bicentennial does not occur but the tickle occurs is not true if the flurry occurs. sent15: the fact that that both the bicentennialness and the tickling happens does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the bicentennial does not occur but the tickle occurs is not true if the flurry occurs.

the fact that the bicentennial does not occur but the tickle occurs is not true if the flurry occurs.

the flurrying happens.

that the skull does genuflect Oliver is correct.

sent1: the railing is a aliquant if it is a Pollux. sent2: the chopsteak does not finalize primo. sent3: something is not allopatric if it is not a cleaning and it does finalize primo. sent4: the railing does finalize primo if the delineation does finalize primo. sent5: if the fact that the undesirable is both a criminalization and not a cryptograph is false the delineation does finalize primo. sent6: the chopsteak genuflects chopsteak but it does not finalize primo. sent7: the chopsteak is allopatric if it genuflects chopsteak and finalizes primo. sent8: the skull is allopatric. sent9: that something is a criminalization and not a cryptograph is not correct if it does color powerhouse. sent10: the fact that the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver and it does not genuflect chopsteak is not right if there is something such that it is not allopatric. sent11: the railing is a Pollux. sent12: if the chopsteak does sever but it is not a criminalization that it is allopatric is correct. sent13: if the skull does finalize primo the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver. sent14: the delineation does genuflect Oliver. sent15: something is not cleaning if that it is a aliquant hold. sent16: the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent17: the chopsteak finalizes refractory but it does not finalize reverse. sent18: everything colors powerhouse. sent19: if the chopsteak does genuflect chopsteak but it does not finalize primo it is allopatric. sent20: the skull does not genuflect chopsteak if the chopsteak is allopatric. sent21: the skull does not finalize primo if the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent22: the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the skull does genuflect Oliver.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the skull does genuflect Oliver is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the railing is a aliquant if it is a Pollux. sent2: the chopsteak does not finalize primo. sent3: something is not allopatric if it is not a cleaning and it does finalize primo. sent4: the railing does finalize primo if the delineation does finalize primo. sent5: if the fact that the undesirable is both a criminalization and not a cryptograph is false the delineation does finalize primo. sent6: the chopsteak genuflects chopsteak but it does not finalize primo. sent7: the chopsteak is allopatric if it genuflects chopsteak and finalizes primo. sent8: the skull is allopatric. sent9: that something is a criminalization and not a cryptograph is not correct if it does color powerhouse. sent10: the fact that the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver and it does not genuflect chopsteak is not right if there is something such that it is not allopatric. sent11: the railing is a Pollux. sent12: if the chopsteak does sever but it is not a criminalization that it is allopatric is correct. sent13: if the skull does finalize primo the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver. sent14: the delineation does genuflect Oliver. sent15: something is not cleaning if that it is a aliquant hold. sent16: the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent17: the chopsteak finalizes refractory but it does not finalize reverse. sent18: everything colors powerhouse. sent19: if the chopsteak does genuflect chopsteak but it does not finalize primo it is allopatric. sent20: the skull does not genuflect chopsteak if the chopsteak is allopatric. sent21: the skull does not finalize primo if the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent22: the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the skull does genuflect Oliver.; sent22 & assump1 -> int1: that the chopsteak is not allopatric is not wrong.; sent19 & sent6 -> int2: the chopsteak is allopatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect.

If Oliver is correct, the chopsteak is not allopatric.

if the chopsteak does genuflect chopsteak but it does not finalize primo it is allopatric.

that the skull does genuflect Oliver is correct.

sent1: the railing is a aliquant if it is a Pollux. sent2: the chopsteak does not finalize primo. sent3: something is not allopatric if it is not a cleaning and it does finalize primo. sent4: the railing does finalize primo if the delineation does finalize primo. sent5: if the fact that the undesirable is both a criminalization and not a cryptograph is false the delineation does finalize primo. sent6: the chopsteak genuflects chopsteak but it does not finalize primo. sent7: the chopsteak is allopatric if it genuflects chopsteak and finalizes primo. sent8: the skull is allopatric. sent9: that something is a criminalization and not a cryptograph is not correct if it does color powerhouse. sent10: the fact that the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver and it does not genuflect chopsteak is not right if there is something such that it is not allopatric. sent11: the railing is a Pollux. sent12: if the chopsteak does sever but it is not a criminalization that it is allopatric is correct. sent13: if the skull does finalize primo the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver. sent14: the delineation does genuflect Oliver. sent15: something is not cleaning if that it is a aliquant hold. sent16: the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent17: the chopsteak finalizes refractory but it does not finalize reverse. sent18: everything colors powerhouse. sent19: if the chopsteak does genuflect chopsteak but it does not finalize primo it is allopatric. sent20: the skull does not genuflect chopsteak if the chopsteak is allopatric. sent21: the skull does not finalize primo if the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent22: the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the skull does genuflect Oliver.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the skull does genuflect Oliver is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the railing is a aliquant if it is a Pollux. sent2: the chopsteak does not finalize primo. sent3: something is not allopatric if it is not a cleaning and it does finalize primo. sent4: the railing does finalize primo if the delineation does finalize primo. sent5: if the fact that the undesirable is both a criminalization and not a cryptograph is false the delineation does finalize primo. sent6: the chopsteak genuflects chopsteak but it does not finalize primo. sent7: the chopsteak is allopatric if it genuflects chopsteak and finalizes primo. sent8: the skull is allopatric. sent9: that something is a criminalization and not a cryptograph is not correct if it does color powerhouse. sent10: the fact that the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver and it does not genuflect chopsteak is not right if there is something such that it is not allopatric. sent11: the railing is a Pollux. sent12: if the chopsteak does sever but it is not a criminalization that it is allopatric is correct. sent13: if the skull does finalize primo the chopsteak does not genuflect Oliver. sent14: the delineation does genuflect Oliver. sent15: something is not cleaning if that it is a aliquant hold. sent16: the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent17: the chopsteak finalizes refractory but it does not finalize reverse. sent18: everything colors powerhouse. sent19: if the chopsteak does genuflect chopsteak but it does not finalize primo it is allopatric. sent20: the skull does not genuflect chopsteak if the chopsteak is allopatric. sent21: the skull does not finalize primo if the chopsteak genuflects Oliver. sent22: the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the skull does genuflect Oliver.; sent22 & assump1 -> int1: that the chopsteak is not allopatric is not wrong.; sent19 & sent6 -> int2: the chopsteak is allopatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chopsteak is not allopatric if that the skull does genuflect Oliver is not incorrect.

The chopsteak is not allopatric if the skull is correct.

the chopsteak genuflects chopsteak but it does not finalize primo.

that the darter does color moonwort and it is a Gielgud is not correct.

sent1: the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered. sent2: the Angus does bum. sent3: the fact that that the darter colors moonwort and is a Gielgud is not correct hold if the scuffer does not finalize slippered. sent4: the darter oversleeps descriptor. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a dot-com and it does not color lancet is not right then the Doctor is a dot-com. sent6: something that does bum is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard. sent7: the senega genuflects endomorph if it does finalize slippered. sent8: if the senega colors moonwort then it is unsatisfactory. sent9: the Doctor bums if the fact that the Angus bums is right. sent10: if something is a dot-com it is unsatisfactory. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a dot-com and does not color lancet is not true. sent12: something does not finalize exchanged and is a Atlas if it does pry. sent13: the darter is unsatisfactory. sent14: if the darter is unsatisfactory then it is a kind of a Gielgud. sent15: if something that does not finalize exchanged is a kind of a Atlas then it is broadband. sent16: that if something is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard it pries is right.

¬({A}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the senega is unsatisfactory.

{D}{gp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the darter does color moonwort and it is a Gielgud is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered. sent2: the Angus does bum. sent3: the fact that that the darter colors moonwort and is a Gielgud is not correct hold if the scuffer does not finalize slippered. sent4: the darter oversleeps descriptor. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a dot-com and it does not color lancet is not right then the Doctor is a dot-com. sent6: something that does bum is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard. sent7: the senega genuflects endomorph if it does finalize slippered. sent8: if the senega colors moonwort then it is unsatisfactory. sent9: the Doctor bums if the fact that the Angus bums is right. sent10: if something is a dot-com it is unsatisfactory. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a dot-com and does not color lancet is not true. sent12: something does not finalize exchanged and is a Atlas if it does pry. sent13: the darter is unsatisfactory. sent14: if the darter is unsatisfactory then it is a kind of a Gielgud. sent15: if something that does not finalize exchanged is a kind of a Atlas then it is broadband. sent16: that if something is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard it pries is right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the darter does color moonwort.; sent14 & sent13 -> int2: the darter is a Gielgud.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered.

The darter colors moonwort.

if the darter is unsatisfactory then it is a kind of a Gielgud.

that the darter does color moonwort and it is a Gielgud is not correct.

sent1: the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered. sent2: the Angus does bum. sent3: the fact that that the darter colors moonwort and is a Gielgud is not correct hold if the scuffer does not finalize slippered. sent4: the darter oversleeps descriptor. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a dot-com and it does not color lancet is not right then the Doctor is a dot-com. sent6: something that does bum is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard. sent7: the senega genuflects endomorph if it does finalize slippered. sent8: if the senega colors moonwort then it is unsatisfactory. sent9: the Doctor bums if the fact that the Angus bums is right. sent10: if something is a dot-com it is unsatisfactory. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a dot-com and does not color lancet is not true. sent12: something does not finalize exchanged and is a Atlas if it does pry. sent13: the darter is unsatisfactory. sent14: if the darter is unsatisfactory then it is a kind of a Gielgud. sent15: if something that does not finalize exchanged is a kind of a Atlas then it is broadband. sent16: that if something is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard it pries is right.

¬({A}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the senega is unsatisfactory.

{D}{gp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the darter does color moonwort and it is a Gielgud is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered. sent2: the Angus does bum. sent3: the fact that that the darter colors moonwort and is a Gielgud is not correct hold if the scuffer does not finalize slippered. sent4: the darter oversleeps descriptor. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a dot-com and it does not color lancet is not right then the Doctor is a dot-com. sent6: something that does bum is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard. sent7: the senega genuflects endomorph if it does finalize slippered. sent8: if the senega colors moonwort then it is unsatisfactory. sent9: the Doctor bums if the fact that the Angus bums is right. sent10: if something is a dot-com it is unsatisfactory. sent11: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a dot-com and does not color lancet is not true. sent12: something does not finalize exchanged and is a Atlas if it does pry. sent13: the darter is unsatisfactory. sent14: if the darter is unsatisfactory then it is a kind of a Gielgud. sent15: if something that does not finalize exchanged is a kind of a Atlas then it is broadband. sent16: that if something is a Ebenaceae and is not a collard it pries is right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the darter does color moonwort.; sent14 & sent13 -> int2: the darter is a Gielgud.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the darter colors moonwort and finalizes slippered.

The darter finishes slippered.

the darter is unsatisfactory.

the psilomelane is offstage.

sent1: that the psilomelane is not Andorran or it is actable or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is either not a squark or a gaff or both is wrong it sports. sent3: the psilomelane is Andorran if something is caryophyllaceous. sent4: something is not Homeric and is not a R if it does not oversleep Lipotyphla. sent5: if something is caryophyllaceous then that the psilomelane is not a Andorran and/or it resizes does not hold. sent6: the psilomelane does not oversleep Lipotyphla if the fact that it is a torturer and it is not local does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the psilomelane is a Andorran and/or resizes is not right hold then it is offstage. sent8: if something is not Homeric and is not a kind of a R then the fact that it is not caryophyllaceous hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong. sent10: the psilomelane is Andorran. sent11: that something is offstage hold if the fact that it is a kind of a Andorran or does resize or both is not correct. sent12: if something is not caryophyllaceous then the fact that it is not offstage is not false. sent13: there are caryophyllaceous things.

{B}{aa}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AQ}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{GP}x v {DN}x) -> {HT}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬({G}{aa} & ¬{F}{aa}) -> ¬{E}{aa} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

the psilomelane is not offstage.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psilomelane is offstage. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psilomelane is not Andorran or it is actable or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is either not a squark or a gaff or both is wrong it sports. sent3: the psilomelane is Andorran if something is caryophyllaceous. sent4: something is not Homeric and is not a R if it does not oversleep Lipotyphla. sent5: if something is caryophyllaceous then that the psilomelane is not a Andorran and/or it resizes does not hold. sent6: the psilomelane does not oversleep Lipotyphla if the fact that it is a torturer and it is not local does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the psilomelane is a Andorran and/or resizes is not right hold then it is offstage. sent8: if something is not Homeric and is not a kind of a R then the fact that it is not caryophyllaceous hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong. sent10: the psilomelane is Andorran. sent11: that something is offstage hold if the fact that it is a kind of a Andorran or does resize or both is not correct. sent12: if something is not caryophyllaceous then the fact that it is not offstage is not false. sent13: there are caryophyllaceous things. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the psilomelane is offstage if the fact that the fact that it is not a Andorran and/or it does resize hold does not hold.; sent13 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that either the psilomelane is not a kind of a Andorran or it does resize or both is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong.

If the fact that something is not a kind of Andorran and/or resizings does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong.

there are caryophyllaceous things.

the psilomelane is offstage.

sent1: that the psilomelane is not Andorran or it is actable or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is either not a squark or a gaff or both is wrong it sports. sent3: the psilomelane is Andorran if something is caryophyllaceous. sent4: something is not Homeric and is not a R if it does not oversleep Lipotyphla. sent5: if something is caryophyllaceous then that the psilomelane is not a Andorran and/or it resizes does not hold. sent6: the psilomelane does not oversleep Lipotyphla if the fact that it is a torturer and it is not local does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the psilomelane is a Andorran and/or resizes is not right hold then it is offstage. sent8: if something is not Homeric and is not a kind of a R then the fact that it is not caryophyllaceous hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong. sent10: the psilomelane is Andorran. sent11: that something is offstage hold if the fact that it is a kind of a Andorran or does resize or both is not correct. sent12: if something is not caryophyllaceous then the fact that it is not offstage is not false. sent13: there are caryophyllaceous things.

{B}{aa}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AQ}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{GP}x v {DN}x) -> {HT}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{E}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬({G}{aa} & ¬{F}{aa}) -> ¬{E}{aa} sent7: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent13: (Ex): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

the psilomelane is not offstage.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the psilomelane is offstage. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psilomelane is not Andorran or it is actable or both is not correct. sent2: if the fact that something is either not a squark or a gaff or both is wrong it sports. sent3: the psilomelane is Andorran if something is caryophyllaceous. sent4: something is not Homeric and is not a R if it does not oversleep Lipotyphla. sent5: if something is caryophyllaceous then that the psilomelane is not a Andorran and/or it resizes does not hold. sent6: the psilomelane does not oversleep Lipotyphla if the fact that it is a torturer and it is not local does not hold. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the psilomelane is a Andorran and/or resizes is not right hold then it is offstage. sent8: if something is not Homeric and is not a kind of a R then the fact that it is not caryophyllaceous hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong. sent10: the psilomelane is Andorran. sent11: that something is offstage hold if the fact that it is a kind of a Andorran or does resize or both is not correct. sent12: if something is not caryophyllaceous then the fact that it is not offstage is not false. sent13: there are caryophyllaceous things. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the psilomelane is offstage if the fact that the fact that it is not a Andorran and/or it does resize hold does not hold.; sent13 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that either the psilomelane is not a kind of a Andorran or it does resize or both is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a Andorran and/or resizes does not hold then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong.

If the fact that something is not a kind of Andorran and/or resizings does not hold, then the fact that it is offstage is not wrong.

if something is caryophyllaceous then that the psilomelane is not a Andorran and/or it resizes does not hold.

the plug-ugly is not unobvious.

sent1: the fact that the mastoidale is a totalitarian is correct. sent2: the purgative is not metastatic if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not color melodiousness and does not color downheartedness is right does not hold. sent3: the bentwood is not non-boronic. sent4: if the altazimuth discusses then the chopper is basophilic. sent5: something is not obvious if that it is boronic and it is a meal is incorrect. sent6: if the bentwood does not discuss then that the plug-ugly is not non-boronic but a meal does not hold. sent7: if the bentwood is a meal then the plug-ugly is obvious. sent8: if the mastoidale is totalitarian then that it does not color melodiousness and does not color downheartedness is wrong. sent9: the fact that the bentwood is not a kind of a Burnside is not wrong if that the altazimuth is not a kind of a hypertension and is a Burnside is not true. sent10: the bentwood is a kind of a Buddhist that is nonvolatile. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not metastatic is not incorrect that the Mackem is a sanguine and is a meed does not hold. sent12: the bentwood is a meal and boronic. sent13: if something is not a sanguine then it is a hypertension. sent14: something that is not a kind of a Burnside does not discuss. sent15: the fact that if there is something such that that it is a sanguine that is a meed is not correct then the mesoderm is not a kind of a sanguine is not wrong.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the plug-ugly is not obvious.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the plug-ugly is not unobvious. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mastoidale is a totalitarian is correct. sent2: the purgative is not metastatic if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not color melodiousness and does not color downheartedness is right does not hold. sent3: the bentwood is not non-boronic. sent4: if the altazimuth discusses then the chopper is basophilic. sent5: something is not obvious if that it is boronic and it is a meal is incorrect. sent6: if the bentwood does not discuss then that the plug-ugly is not non-boronic but a meal does not hold. sent7: if the bentwood is a meal then the plug-ugly is obvious. sent8: if the mastoidale is totalitarian then that it does not color melodiousness and does not color downheartedness is wrong. sent9: the fact that the bentwood is not a kind of a Burnside is not wrong if that the altazimuth is not a kind of a hypertension and is a Burnside is not true. sent10: the bentwood is a kind of a Buddhist that is nonvolatile. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not metastatic is not incorrect that the Mackem is a sanguine and is a meed does not hold. sent12: the bentwood is a meal and boronic. sent13: if something is not a sanguine then it is a hypertension. sent14: something that is not a kind of a Burnside does not discuss. sent15: the fact that if there is something such that that it is a sanguine that is a meed is not correct then the mesoderm is not a kind of a sanguine is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: the bentwood is a meal.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bentwood is a meal and boronic.

the bentwood is a meal and boronic.

if the bentwood is a meal then the plug-ugly is obvious.

the ordinary is not a clashing.

sent1: the heath is a PIJ. sent2: the fact that the fern is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ does not hold if the ordinary wakes. sent3: the heath is not a wake. sent4: the curlew is not a PIJ. sent5: if the heath is a wake then the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ is wrong. sent6: if the fern is an overkill the heath is not a PIJ and is questionable. sent7: if the heath wakes that the fern is a PIJ but it is not a clashing is not right. sent8: if the fern is a PIJ the fact that the heath is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent9: if the ordinary is a kind of a PIJ it clashes. sent10: the ordinary is unconditional. sent11: if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent12: that that the heath is vagile thing that is non-likable is not true is not incorrect. sent13: if the fern does not wake then the ordinary does not clash. sent14: the ordinary is not southern. sent15: if the fact that the fern is a PIJ and is not southern does not hold then the heath is not a wake. sent16: if the fact that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold then the ordinary is not a clashing.

¬{B}{c}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {AA}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{ia} sent5: {AA}{a} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent6: {D}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: {AA}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent8: {A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: {A}{c} -> {B}{c} sent10: {ID}{c} sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent12: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{FR}{a}) sent13: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent14: ¬{AB}{c} sent15: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent16: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the ordinary clashes is true.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ordinary is not a clashing. ; $context$ = sent1: the heath is a PIJ. sent2: the fact that the fern is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ does not hold if the ordinary wakes. sent3: the heath is not a wake. sent4: the curlew is not a PIJ. sent5: if the heath is a wake then the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ is wrong. sent6: if the fern is an overkill the heath is not a PIJ and is questionable. sent7: if the heath wakes that the fern is a PIJ but it is not a clashing is not right. sent8: if the fern is a PIJ the fact that the heath is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent9: if the ordinary is a kind of a PIJ it clashes. sent10: the ordinary is unconditional. sent11: if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent12: that that the heath is vagile thing that is non-likable is not true is not incorrect. sent13: if the fern does not wake then the ordinary does not clash. sent14: the ordinary is not southern. sent15: if the fact that the fern is a PIJ and is not southern does not hold then the heath is not a wake. sent16: if the fact that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold then the ordinary is not a clashing. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent1 -> int1: that the fern wakes but it is not southern does not hold.; sent16 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold.

If the fern is a wake but not the southern one, then the heath is a PIJ.

the heath is a PIJ.

the ordinary is not a clashing.

sent1: the heath is a PIJ. sent2: the fact that the fern is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ does not hold if the ordinary wakes. sent3: the heath is not a wake. sent4: the curlew is not a PIJ. sent5: if the heath is a wake then the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ is wrong. sent6: if the fern is an overkill the heath is not a PIJ and is questionable. sent7: if the heath wakes that the fern is a PIJ but it is not a clashing is not right. sent8: if the fern is a PIJ the fact that the heath is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent9: if the ordinary is a kind of a PIJ it clashes. sent10: the ordinary is unconditional. sent11: if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent12: that that the heath is vagile thing that is non-likable is not true is not incorrect. sent13: if the fern does not wake then the ordinary does not clash. sent14: the ordinary is not southern. sent15: if the fact that the fern is a PIJ and is not southern does not hold then the heath is not a wake. sent16: if the fact that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold then the ordinary is not a clashing.

¬{B}{c}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {AA}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ¬{AA}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{ia} sent5: {AA}{a} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent6: {D}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: {AA}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent8: {A}{b} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: {A}{c} -> {B}{c} sent10: {ID}{c} sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent12: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{FR}{a}) sent13: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent14: ¬{AB}{c} sent15: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent16: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the ordinary clashes is true.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ordinary is not a clashing. ; $context$ = sent1: the heath is a PIJ. sent2: the fact that the fern is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ does not hold if the ordinary wakes. sent3: the heath is not a wake. sent4: the curlew is not a PIJ. sent5: if the heath is a wake then the fact that the ordinary is a kind of a clashing that is not a PIJ is wrong. sent6: if the fern is an overkill the heath is not a PIJ and is questionable. sent7: if the heath wakes that the fern is a PIJ but it is not a clashing is not right. sent8: if the fern is a PIJ the fact that the heath is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent9: if the ordinary is a kind of a PIJ it clashes. sent10: the ordinary is unconditional. sent11: if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold. sent12: that that the heath is vagile thing that is non-likable is not true is not incorrect. sent13: if the fern does not wake then the ordinary does not clash. sent14: the ordinary is not southern. sent15: if the fact that the fern is a PIJ and is not southern does not hold then the heath is not a wake. sent16: if the fact that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold then the ordinary is not a clashing. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent1 -> int1: that the fern wakes but it is not southern does not hold.; sent16 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the heath is a kind of a PIJ then that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold.

The fern is a wake, but not the southern one, if the heath is a kind of PIJ.

if the fact that the fern is a wake but not southern does not hold then the ordinary is not a clashing.

the climber is calyceal or it does genuflect gesneriad or both.

sent1: the fragment does not genuflect gesneriad. sent2: The Atrovent does not oversleep wagonwright. sent3: the wagonwright is not contralateral and is not an eyelet. sent4: the fact that the bittersweet does not genuflect gesneriad is not false. sent5: the climber is not a kind of a seemliness. sent6: the wagonwright does not oversleep Atrovent. sent7: the fact that the climber is calyceal is not incorrect if the wagonwright does not oversleep Atrovent and is not apicultural.

({C}{b} v {D}{b})

sent1: ¬{D}{fj} sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: (¬{DL}{a} & ¬{GF}{a}) sent4: ¬{D}{af} sent5: ¬{AI}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the climber is calyceal or it does genuflect gesneriad or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the fragment does not genuflect gesneriad. sent2: The Atrovent does not oversleep wagonwright. sent3: the wagonwright is not contralateral and is not an eyelet. sent4: the fact that the bittersweet does not genuflect gesneriad is not false. sent5: the climber is not a kind of a seemliness. sent6: the wagonwright does not oversleep Atrovent. sent7: the fact that the climber is calyceal is not incorrect if the wagonwright does not oversleep Atrovent and is not apicultural. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the wagonwright is not contralateral and is not an eyelet.

the wagonwright is not contralateral and is not an eyelet.

the fragment does not genuflect gesneriad.

the subcompact genuflects LPN.

sent1: something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb. sent2: the subcompact is not a puberty. sent3: if the nadolol is not a kind of a Mohave and does not genuflect bomb the stabile does not genuflect bomb. sent4: the subcompact does not genuflect venison. sent5: if the subcompact does not rev that it is not a kind of a squirter hold. sent6: if the subcompact is not a kind of a puberty it does not genuflect bomb. sent7: something is not a kind of a Mohave if that it does kennel is true. sent8: if the subcompact does not genuflect bomb then it does not genuflect venison. sent9: something does not genuflect venison if that it does not genuflect bomb is not incorrect.

{AB}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{jk} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: ¬{EQ}{aa} -> ¬{IS}{aa} sent6: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the subcompact does genuflect LPN is right.

{AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subcompact genuflects LPN. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb. sent2: the subcompact is not a puberty. sent3: if the nadolol is not a kind of a Mohave and does not genuflect bomb the stabile does not genuflect bomb. sent4: the subcompact does not genuflect venison. sent5: if the subcompact does not rev that it is not a kind of a squirter hold. sent6: if the subcompact is not a kind of a puberty it does not genuflect bomb. sent7: something is not a kind of a Mohave if that it does kennel is true. sent8: if the subcompact does not genuflect bomb then it does not genuflect venison. sent9: something does not genuflect venison if that it does not genuflect bomb is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the subcompact does not genuflect venison and it does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the subcompact does not genuflect bomb.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb.

It isn't genouflect if it doesn't bomb and it isn't genouflect if it isn't genouflect if it isn't genouflect if it isn't genouflect if it isn't genouflect if it isn't

if the subcompact is not a kind of a puberty it does not genuflect bomb.

the subcompact genuflects LPN.

sent1: something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb. sent2: the subcompact is not a puberty. sent3: if the nadolol is not a kind of a Mohave and does not genuflect bomb the stabile does not genuflect bomb. sent4: the subcompact does not genuflect venison. sent5: if the subcompact does not rev that it is not a kind of a squirter hold. sent6: if the subcompact is not a kind of a puberty it does not genuflect bomb. sent7: something is not a kind of a Mohave if that it does kennel is true. sent8: if the subcompact does not genuflect bomb then it does not genuflect venison. sent9: something does not genuflect venison if that it does not genuflect bomb is not incorrect.

{AB}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{jk} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: ¬{EQ}{aa} -> ¬{IS}{aa} sent6: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the subcompact does genuflect LPN is right.

{AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the subcompact genuflects LPN. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb. sent2: the subcompact is not a puberty. sent3: if the nadolol is not a kind of a Mohave and does not genuflect bomb the stabile does not genuflect bomb. sent4: the subcompact does not genuflect venison. sent5: if the subcompact does not rev that it is not a kind of a squirter hold. sent6: if the subcompact is not a kind of a puberty it does not genuflect bomb. sent7: something is not a kind of a Mohave if that it does kennel is true. sent8: if the subcompact does not genuflect bomb then it does not genuflect venison. sent9: something does not genuflect venison if that it does not genuflect bomb is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the subcompact does not genuflect venison and it does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the subcompact does not genuflect bomb.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the subcompact does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not genuflect venison and does not genuflect LPN if it does not genuflect bomb.

It doesn't do anything if it doesn't bomb venison or if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't do anything if it doesn't do anything if it

the subcompact is not a puberty.

the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false.

sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the palomino is not an embezzlement and it is not indusial is not right.

¬(¬{CB}{df} & ¬{BN}{df})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent5 -> int1: the precipitin is not irreversible but it is unaware.; sent11 -> int2: the precipitin is not revolutionary if it is both not irreversible and unaware.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precipitin is not revolutionary.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that that the precipitin is a kind of non-Norman thing that does not color Leucaena is incorrect is not incorrect if it is not revolutionary.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic.

If it is not abiogenetic, the precipitin is not irreversible.

the precipitin is not abiogenetic.

the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false.

sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the palomino is not an embezzlement and it is not indusial is not right.

¬(¬{CB}{df} & ¬{BN}{df})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent5 -> int1: the precipitin is not irreversible but it is unaware.; sent11 -> int2: the precipitin is not revolutionary if it is both not irreversible and unaware.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precipitin is not revolutionary.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that that the precipitin is a kind of non-Norman thing that does not color Leucaena is incorrect is not incorrect if it is not revolutionary.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic.

If it is not abiogenetic, the precipitin is irreversible.

if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary.

the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false.

sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman.

¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the palomino is not an embezzlement and it is not indusial is not right.

¬(¬{CB}{df} & ¬{BN}{df})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the precipitin is not Norman and it does not color Leucaena is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the precipitin is not a kind of a Norman but it colors Leucaena is not true if it is non-revolutionary. sent2: that the stumpknocker is both non-abiogenetic and not non-revolutionary is not true if the blenny is a kind of a Norman. sent3: if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false. sent4: something is not revolutionary or it does not oversleep insurance or both if it is a toboggan. sent5: the precipitin is not abiogenetic. sent6: that if the fact that the revetment is not a toboggan and it does not color disinflation is not correct then the Weld does not oversleep insurance is correct. sent7: if something is abiogenetic it is indusial. sent8: something is a Norman and it colors Leucaena if it does not oversleep insurance. sent9: if something is abiogenetic then it is not a kind of a Norman and does not color Leucaena. sent10: the fact that something is not a Norman and does color Leucaena is incorrect if it is not revolutionary. sent11: if something that is not irreversible is unaware then it is not revolutionary. sent12: the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic. sent13: the precipitin is abiogenetic if the fact that the stumpknocker is abiogenetic thing that is revolutionary is not correct. sent14: the blenny is Norman if the Weld is a Norman. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent5 -> int1: the precipitin is not irreversible but it is unaware.; sent11 -> int2: the precipitin is not revolutionary if it is both not irreversible and unaware.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precipitin is not revolutionary.; sent3 -> int4: the fact that that the precipitin is a kind of non-Norman thing that does not color Leucaena is incorrect is not incorrect if it is not revolutionary.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the precipitin is not irreversible but unaware if it is not abiogenetic.

If it's not abiogenetic, the precipitin is not irreversible.

if something is not revolutionary then that it is not Norman and does not color Leucaena is false.

there exists something such that it is not non-congeneric and genuflects baht.

sent1: The Glareolidae colors acetaldehyde. sent2: there exists something such that it is a kind of an anguish or it is not a repletion or both. sent3: the engineering genuflects baht if the acetaldehyde does color slippered. sent4: the planchet colors Glareolidae. sent5: the engineering is congeneric if there is something such that it does not anguish or it is not a kind of a repletion or both. sent6: there exists something such that it is congeneric. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a repletion the engineering is not non-congeneric. sent8: there exists something such that it is not an anguish or not a repletion or both. sent9: the acetaldehyde does color slippered if it colors Glareolidae. sent10: something either is not an anguish or is a repletion or both. sent11: if that the stereo is not congeneric is not wrong the fact that the engineering does color slippered and genuflects baht is wrong. sent12: the Darwinian is not a blister. sent13: if the Darwinian is not a kind of a blister that it is not a repletion and it does anguish is not right. sent14: something is not a scapular and/or does not genuflect racing if it does not color Glareolidae.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there exists something such that it is not scapular and/or it does not genuflect racing.

(Ex): (¬{CQ}x v ¬{JF}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not non-congeneric and genuflects baht. ; $context$ = sent1: The Glareolidae colors acetaldehyde. sent2: there exists something such that it is a kind of an anguish or it is not a repletion or both. sent3: the engineering genuflects baht if the acetaldehyde does color slippered. sent4: the planchet colors Glareolidae. sent5: the engineering is congeneric if there is something such that it does not anguish or it is not a kind of a repletion or both. sent6: there exists something such that it is congeneric. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a repletion the engineering is not non-congeneric. sent8: there exists something such that it is not an anguish or not a repletion or both. sent9: the acetaldehyde does color slippered if it colors Glareolidae. sent10: something either is not an anguish or is a repletion or both. sent11: if that the stereo is not congeneric is not wrong the fact that the engineering does color slippered and genuflects baht is wrong. sent12: the Darwinian is not a blister. sent13: if the Darwinian is not a kind of a blister that it is not a repletion and it does anguish is not right. sent14: something is not a scapular and/or does not genuflect racing if it does not color Glareolidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not an anguish or not a repletion or both.

there exists something such that it is not an anguish or not a repletion or both.

the engineering is congeneric if there is something such that it does not anguish or it is not a kind of a repletion or both.

the Scotch is not a kind of a circular.

sent1: if something is irrevocable then it is not a circular. sent2: either the Scotch is irrevocable or it is a knife or both if that the he does not flash hold. sent3: the he is not a kind of a umpirage if either the gadgeteer is not a umpirage or it does color grillroom or both. sent4: the he does not flash. sent5: the Scotch does flash and/or it is trigonometric if the he is not a umpirage. sent6: the Scotch is not a kind of a circular if it is irrevocable. sent7: something does not flash if it is a kind of a circular or it knifes or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is a kind of a headgear. sent9: the fact that the mudder is not geostrategic and is not gonadal is incorrect if something is a headgear. sent10: if the Scotch does not flash then either the he is a circular or it is irrevocable or both.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Scotch is a kind of a circular.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Scotch is not a kind of a circular. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is irrevocable then it is not a circular. sent2: either the Scotch is irrevocable or it is a knife or both if that the he does not flash hold. sent3: the he is not a kind of a umpirage if either the gadgeteer is not a umpirage or it does color grillroom or both. sent4: the he does not flash. sent5: the Scotch does flash and/or it is trigonometric if the he is not a umpirage. sent6: the Scotch is not a kind of a circular if it is irrevocable. sent7: something does not flash if it is a kind of a circular or it knifes or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is a kind of a headgear. sent9: the fact that the mudder is not geostrategic and is not gonadal is incorrect if something is a headgear. sent10: if the Scotch does not flash then either the he is a circular or it is irrevocable or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the Scotch is irrevocable or it is a knife or both if that the he does not flash hold.

either the Scotch is irrevocable or it is a knife or both if that the he does not flash hold.

the he does not flash.

the transferer is not mesoblastic.

sent1: if that something genuflects raceway and it is orthodontics is not correct then it is not mesoblastic. sent2: the barleycorn does deform and colors Wisconsinite. sent3: the fact that the transferer is not a kind of a patricide is correct if the fact that the antiproton is not a patricide but it is Australian does not hold. sent4: the psalmist does not genuflect raceway. sent5: if something is a Gothic then it throbs. sent6: if the Feosol is not scalic the fact that it finalizes Cimarron and is not altitudinal is not true. sent7: the barleycorn does genuflect raceway. sent8: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic and it genuflects raceway. sent9: the fact that the antiproton is not a kind of a patricide but it is Australian is wrong if it does genuflect vesicant. sent10: the barleycorn is nasopharyngeal a Carthaginian. sent11: the fact that the Cimarron does genuflect raceway and it is orthodontics is not right if the fact that the transferer is not a patricide is right. sent12: the Feosol is not scalic. sent13: the barleycorn is not mesoblastic. sent14: if the fact that the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing is true then the transferer is not mesoblastic.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HU}{aa} & {AG}{aa}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent4: ¬{D}{gp} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent6: ¬{K}{c} -> ¬({I}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) sent7: {D}{aa} sent8: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent9: {G}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & {H}{b}) sent10: ({AF}{aa} & {HJ}{aa}) sent11: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({D}{bd} & {E}{bd}) sent12: ¬{K}{c} sent13: ¬{B}{aa} sent14: {C}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the Cimarron is a throbbing.

{C}{bd}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transferer is not mesoblastic. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something genuflects raceway and it is orthodontics is not correct then it is not mesoblastic. sent2: the barleycorn does deform and colors Wisconsinite. sent3: the fact that the transferer is not a kind of a patricide is correct if the fact that the antiproton is not a patricide but it is Australian does not hold. sent4: the psalmist does not genuflect raceway. sent5: if something is a Gothic then it throbs. sent6: if the Feosol is not scalic the fact that it finalizes Cimarron and is not altitudinal is not true. sent7: the barleycorn does genuflect raceway. sent8: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic and it genuflects raceway. sent9: the fact that the antiproton is not a kind of a patricide but it is Australian is wrong if it does genuflect vesicant. sent10: the barleycorn is nasopharyngeal a Carthaginian. sent11: the fact that the Cimarron does genuflect raceway and it is orthodontics is not right if the fact that the transferer is not a patricide is right. sent12: the Feosol is not scalic. sent13: the barleycorn is not mesoblastic. sent14: if the fact that the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing is true then the transferer is not mesoblastic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the barleycorn is a Gothic then it is a throbbing.; sent8 -> int2: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is a Gothic then it throbs.

It would throbs if it was a Gothic.

the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic and it genuflects raceway.

the transferer is not mesoblastic.

sent1: if that something genuflects raceway and it is orthodontics is not correct then it is not mesoblastic. sent2: the barleycorn does deform and colors Wisconsinite. sent3: the fact that the transferer is not a kind of a patricide is correct if the fact that the antiproton is not a patricide but it is Australian does not hold. sent4: the psalmist does not genuflect raceway. sent5: if something is a Gothic then it throbs. sent6: if the Feosol is not scalic the fact that it finalizes Cimarron and is not altitudinal is not true. sent7: the barleycorn does genuflect raceway. sent8: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic and it genuflects raceway. sent9: the fact that the antiproton is not a kind of a patricide but it is Australian is wrong if it does genuflect vesicant. sent10: the barleycorn is nasopharyngeal a Carthaginian. sent11: the fact that the Cimarron does genuflect raceway and it is orthodontics is not right if the fact that the transferer is not a patricide is right. sent12: the Feosol is not scalic. sent13: the barleycorn is not mesoblastic. sent14: if the fact that the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing is true then the transferer is not mesoblastic.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ({HU}{aa} & {AG}{aa}) sent3: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent4: ¬{D}{gp} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent6: ¬{K}{c} -> ¬({I}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) sent7: {D}{aa} sent8: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent9: {G}{b} -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & {H}{b}) sent10: ({AF}{aa} & {HJ}{aa}) sent11: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({D}{bd} & {E}{bd}) sent12: ¬{K}{c} sent13: ¬{B}{aa} sent14: {C}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the Cimarron is a throbbing.

{C}{bd}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the transferer is not mesoblastic. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something genuflects raceway and it is orthodontics is not correct then it is not mesoblastic. sent2: the barleycorn does deform and colors Wisconsinite. sent3: the fact that the transferer is not a kind of a patricide is correct if the fact that the antiproton is not a patricide but it is Australian does not hold. sent4: the psalmist does not genuflect raceway. sent5: if something is a Gothic then it throbs. sent6: if the Feosol is not scalic the fact that it finalizes Cimarron and is not altitudinal is not true. sent7: the barleycorn does genuflect raceway. sent8: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic and it genuflects raceway. sent9: the fact that the antiproton is not a kind of a patricide but it is Australian is wrong if it does genuflect vesicant. sent10: the barleycorn is nasopharyngeal a Carthaginian. sent11: the fact that the Cimarron does genuflect raceway and it is orthodontics is not right if the fact that the transferer is not a patricide is right. sent12: the Feosol is not scalic. sent13: the barleycorn is not mesoblastic. sent14: if the fact that the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing is true then the transferer is not mesoblastic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the barleycorn is a Gothic then it is a throbbing.; sent8 -> int2: the barleycorn is a kind of a Gothic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is a Gothic then it throbs.

It will throbs if it is a Gothic.

if the fact that the barleycorn is a kind of a throbbing is true then the transferer is not mesoblastic.

the sarcodinian is not callithumpian and colors bioremediation.

sent1: if the feldspar is a profaneness then it is a kind of non-cousinly thing that is a semidesert. sent2: if a uncousinly thing is a semidesert then it is not electrocardiographic. sent3: the physa does finalize propaedeutic. sent4: the fact that the physa does not finalize propaedeutic is right if the feldspar is not electrocardiographic and it does not finalize propaedeutic. sent5: something does not color bioremediation and is a polynomial if that it does not finalize propaedeutic is not false. sent6: the monoamine is electrocardiographic. sent7: a chatter is not a kind of a profaneness. sent8: the pisser is callithumpian. sent9: if the physa is electrocardiographic then the fact that the feldspar does finalize propaedeutic is not incorrect. sent10: The propaedeutic does finalize physa. sent11: the sarcodinian does color bioremediation if the feldspar is electrocardiographic. sent12: the feldspar colors bioremediation if that the sarcodinian is electrocardiographic is not wrong. sent13: if the physa finalizes propaedeutic the feldspar is electrocardiographic. sent14: the feldspar is a Lappland. sent15: the feldspar is both a semidesert and cousinly if it is not a kind of a profaneness. sent16: the sarcodinian does not finalize leopard and is a chattel. sent17: if the physa does not finalize propaedeutic the fact that the sarcodinian is not callithumpian and does color bioremediation is incorrect. sent18: if the feldspar is cousinly it is not Triassic and it is electrocardiographic.

(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c})

sent1: {H}{b} -> (¬{F}{b} & {G}{b}) sent2: (x): (¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{D}x & {ES}x) sent6: {B}{bq} sent7: (x): {I}x -> ¬{H}x sent8: {C}{bh} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: {AA}{aa} sent11: {B}{b} -> {D}{c} sent12: {B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent14: {BO}{b} sent15: ¬{H}{b} -> ({G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent16: (¬{IL}{c} & {O}{c}) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent18: {F}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the physa does not color bioremediation and is polynomial.

(¬{D}{a} & {ES}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sarcodinian is not callithumpian and colors bioremediation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the feldspar is a profaneness then it is a kind of non-cousinly thing that is a semidesert. sent2: if a uncousinly thing is a semidesert then it is not electrocardiographic. sent3: the physa does finalize propaedeutic. sent4: the fact that the physa does not finalize propaedeutic is right if the feldspar is not electrocardiographic and it does not finalize propaedeutic. sent5: something does not color bioremediation and is a polynomial if that it does not finalize propaedeutic is not false. sent6: the monoamine is electrocardiographic. sent7: a chatter is not a kind of a profaneness. sent8: the pisser is callithumpian. sent9: if the physa is electrocardiographic then the fact that the feldspar does finalize propaedeutic is not incorrect. sent10: The propaedeutic does finalize physa. sent11: the sarcodinian does color bioremediation if the feldspar is electrocardiographic. sent12: the feldspar colors bioremediation if that the sarcodinian is electrocardiographic is not wrong. sent13: if the physa finalizes propaedeutic the feldspar is electrocardiographic. sent14: the feldspar is a Lappland. sent15: the feldspar is both a semidesert and cousinly if it is not a kind of a profaneness. sent16: the sarcodinian does not finalize leopard and is a chattel. sent17: if the physa does not finalize propaedeutic the fact that the sarcodinian is not callithumpian and does color bioremediation is incorrect. sent18: if the feldspar is cousinly it is not Triassic and it is electrocardiographic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the physa finalizes propaedeutic the feldspar is electrocardiographic.

if the physa finalizes propaedeutic the feldspar is electrocardiographic.

the physa does finalize propaedeutic.

the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong.

sent1: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is incorrect. sent2: that the Marsh is nonthermal but it is not aphoristic does not hold if the fact that the Chilean is not nonthermal is not false. sent3: that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is false if the bivalve is a foolscap. sent4: if something is not a Strepera then it is not nonthermal. sent5: if the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal does not hold then the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. sent6: everything is not a Zapus. sent7: the fact that something is a humbug and is not nonthermal does not hold if it does not tinge. sent8: the fact that something is a cheapjack and/or is a leatherjacket is not correct if it is not a kind of a Zapus. sent9: the bivalve is nonthermal. sent10: if the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap then that the Marsh is a foolscap that is not nonthermal is not true. sent11: the Marsh is not a Strepera if the fact that the formulation is a cheapjack and/or it is a leatherjacket does not hold. sent12: that if the Marsh is nonthermal then the Chilean is aphoristic is not incorrect. sent13: the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap. sent14: if the Marsh is not nonthermal the fact that the bivalve does tinge but it is not a kind of a foolscap is incorrect.

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Chilean is not aphoristic.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is incorrect. sent2: that the Marsh is nonthermal but it is not aphoristic does not hold if the fact that the Chilean is not nonthermal is not false. sent3: that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is false if the bivalve is a foolscap. sent4: if something is not a Strepera then it is not nonthermal. sent5: if the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal does not hold then the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. sent6: everything is not a Zapus. sent7: the fact that something is a humbug and is not nonthermal does not hold if it does not tinge. sent8: the fact that something is a cheapjack and/or is a leatherjacket is not correct if it is not a kind of a Zapus. sent9: the bivalve is nonthermal. sent10: if the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap then that the Marsh is a foolscap that is not nonthermal is not true. sent11: the Marsh is not a Strepera if the fact that the formulation is a cheapjack and/or it is a leatherjacket does not hold. sent12: that if the Marsh is nonthermal then the Chilean is aphoristic is not incorrect. sent13: the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap. sent14: if the Marsh is not nonthermal the fact that the bivalve does tinge but it is not a kind of a foolscap is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal is not true.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap.

The bivalve is a foolscap, it does tinge and 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611

if the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap then that the Marsh is a foolscap that is not nonthermal is not true.

the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong.

sent1: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is incorrect. sent2: that the Marsh is nonthermal but it is not aphoristic does not hold if the fact that the Chilean is not nonthermal is not false. sent3: that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is false if the bivalve is a foolscap. sent4: if something is not a Strepera then it is not nonthermal. sent5: if the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal does not hold then the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. sent6: everything is not a Zapus. sent7: the fact that something is a humbug and is not nonthermal does not hold if it does not tinge. sent8: the fact that something is a cheapjack and/or is a leatherjacket is not correct if it is not a kind of a Zapus. sent9: the bivalve is nonthermal. sent10: if the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap then that the Marsh is a foolscap that is not nonthermal is not true. sent11: the Marsh is not a Strepera if the fact that the formulation is a cheapjack and/or it is a leatherjacket does not hold. sent12: that if the Marsh is nonthermal then the Chilean is aphoristic is not incorrect. sent13: the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap. sent14: if the Marsh is not nonthermal the fact that the bivalve does tinge but it is not a kind of a foolscap is incorrect.

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Chilean is not aphoristic.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is incorrect. sent2: that the Marsh is nonthermal but it is not aphoristic does not hold if the fact that the Chilean is not nonthermal is not false. sent3: that the Marsh is a foolscap and it is nonthermal is false if the bivalve is a foolscap. sent4: if something is not a Strepera then it is not nonthermal. sent5: if the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal does not hold then the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong. sent6: everything is not a Zapus. sent7: the fact that something is a humbug and is not nonthermal does not hold if it does not tinge. sent8: the fact that something is a cheapjack and/or is a leatherjacket is not correct if it is not a kind of a Zapus. sent9: the bivalve is nonthermal. sent10: if the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap then that the Marsh is a foolscap that is not nonthermal is not true. sent11: the Marsh is not a Strepera if the fact that the formulation is a cheapjack and/or it is a leatherjacket does not hold. sent12: that if the Marsh is nonthermal then the Chilean is aphoristic is not incorrect. sent13: the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap. sent14: if the Marsh is not nonthermal the fact that the bivalve does tinge but it is not a kind of a foolscap is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the bivalve is a kind of a foolscap.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal is not true.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bivalve does tinge and is a foolscap.

The bivalve is a foolscap because it tinges and 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611

if the fact that the Marsh is a foolscap and is not nonthermal does not hold then the fact that the Chilean is aphoristic is not wrong.

the capsaicin is not chancrous but it is a polyploidy.

sent1: that something is a kind of a melancholic and it is a astrometry is wrong if it does not sight. sent2: that the capsaicin is a shagginess and a polyploidy is not true. sent3: the capsaicin is a state if it loads. sent4: the celestite is not a state if the capo does not state. sent5: if the fact that the capsaicin is a state hold that it is chancrous and it is a polyploidy is false. sent6: if that something does not finalize Boethius and does sight is not right then it is not a sight. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a melancholic and it is a kind of a astrometry is not true the capo is not a state. sent8: if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true. sent9: there exists nothing such that it does not finalize Boethius and it is a kind of a sights. sent10: the capsaicin does load. sent11: the decoupage is chancrous.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the celestite is not a load but it does finalize emphysema is false.

¬(¬{B}{fh} & {CK}{fh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the capsaicin is not chancrous but it is a polyploidy. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of a melancholic and it is a astrometry is wrong if it does not sight. sent2: that the capsaicin is a shagginess and a polyploidy is not true. sent3: the capsaicin is a state if it loads. sent4: the celestite is not a state if the capo does not state. sent5: if the fact that the capsaicin is a state hold that it is chancrous and it is a polyploidy is false. sent6: if that something does not finalize Boethius and does sight is not right then it is not a sight. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a melancholic and it is a kind of a astrometry is not true the capo is not a state. sent8: if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true. sent9: there exists nothing such that it does not finalize Boethius and it is a kind of a sights. sent10: the capsaicin does load. sent11: the decoupage is chancrous. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: if the capsaicin is a state the fact that it is not chancrous but a polyploidy is not right.; sent3 & sent10 -> int2: the capsaicin is a state.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true.

A polyploidy is not true if something states that it is not chancrous.

the capsaicin is a state if it loads.

the capsaicin is not chancrous but it is a polyploidy.

sent1: that something is a kind of a melancholic and it is a astrometry is wrong if it does not sight. sent2: that the capsaicin is a shagginess and a polyploidy is not true. sent3: the capsaicin is a state if it loads. sent4: the celestite is not a state if the capo does not state. sent5: if the fact that the capsaicin is a state hold that it is chancrous and it is a polyploidy is false. sent6: if that something does not finalize Boethius and does sight is not right then it is not a sight. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a melancholic and it is a kind of a astrometry is not true the capo is not a state. sent8: if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true. sent9: there exists nothing such that it does not finalize Boethius and it is a kind of a sights. sent10: the capsaicin does load. sent11: the decoupage is chancrous.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the celestite is not a load but it does finalize emphysema is false.

¬(¬{B}{fh} & {CK}{fh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the capsaicin is not chancrous but it is a polyploidy. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of a melancholic and it is a astrometry is wrong if it does not sight. sent2: that the capsaicin is a shagginess and a polyploidy is not true. sent3: the capsaicin is a state if it loads. sent4: the celestite is not a state if the capo does not state. sent5: if the fact that the capsaicin is a state hold that it is chancrous and it is a polyploidy is false. sent6: if that something does not finalize Boethius and does sight is not right then it is not a sight. sent7: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a melancholic and it is a kind of a astrometry is not true the capo is not a state. sent8: if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true. sent9: there exists nothing such that it does not finalize Boethius and it is a kind of a sights. sent10: the capsaicin does load. sent11: the decoupage is chancrous. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: if the capsaicin is a state the fact that it is not chancrous but a polyploidy is not right.; sent3 & sent10 -> int2: the capsaicin is a state.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something states then that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy is not true.

If something says that it is not chancrous and is a polyploidy, that is not true.

the capsaicin does load.

the fact that the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette does not hold.

sent1: the medlar does visit if the pageboy is not a visit and does not finalize glebe. sent2: if the pageboy is a moquette then the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette. sent3: the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both. sent4: the pageboy is not a breakfast or is a Togolese or both.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the medlar does not loft and it is not a moquette is wrong.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the medlar does visit if the pageboy is not a visit and does not finalize glebe. sent2: if the pageboy is a moquette then the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette. sent3: the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both. sent4: the pageboy is not a breakfast or is a Togolese or both. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the pageboy is a moquette.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both.

If the pageboy does not breakfast, it is a moquette.

the pageboy is not a breakfast or is a Togolese or both.

the fact that the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette does not hold.

sent1: the medlar does visit if the pageboy is not a visit and does not finalize glebe. sent2: if the pageboy is a moquette then the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette. sent3: the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both. sent4: the pageboy is not a breakfast or is a Togolese or both.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the medlar does not loft and it is not a moquette is wrong.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the medlar does visit if the pageboy is not a visit and does not finalize glebe. sent2: if the pageboy is a moquette then the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette. sent3: the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both. sent4: the pageboy is not a breakfast or is a Togolese or both. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the pageboy is a moquette.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or it is a Togolese or both.

The pageboy is a moquette if it does not breakfast or both.

if the pageboy is a moquette then the medlar is not a kind of a loft and is not a moquette.

the porkfish is a plowing.

sent1: if the earthworm is a plowing it is burrlike. sent2: the earthworm is burrlike. sent3: the pentode is a kind of a Arkansan. sent4: that the crossing is not a tadpole and is a kind of a sabertooth is false if the pentode is a Arkansan. sent5: if the porkfish is not a sabertooth then that it sharpens and it is a kind of a tadpole is incorrect. sent6: the porkfish is Delphic. sent7: the earthworm plows if the porkfish is burrlike. sent8: something is atomistic if it is washable. sent9: the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike. sent10: something does plow if that it does sharpen is correct.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the skylark is a plowing is not wrong.

{C}{al}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the porkfish is a plowing. ; $context$ = sent1: if the earthworm is a plowing it is burrlike. sent2: the earthworm is burrlike. sent3: the pentode is a kind of a Arkansan. sent4: that the crossing is not a tadpole and is a kind of a sabertooth is false if the pentode is a Arkansan. sent5: if the porkfish is not a sabertooth then that it sharpens and it is a kind of a tadpole is incorrect. sent6: the porkfish is Delphic. sent7: the earthworm plows if the porkfish is burrlike. sent8: something is atomistic if it is washable. sent9: the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike. sent10: something does plow if that it does sharpen is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the porkfish does sharpen.; sent10 -> int2: if the porkfish does sharpen then it plows.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike.

If the earthworm is burrlike, the porkfish will sharpen.

the earthworm is burrlike.

the porkfish is a plowing.

sent1: if the earthworm is a plowing it is burrlike. sent2: the earthworm is burrlike. sent3: the pentode is a kind of a Arkansan. sent4: that the crossing is not a tadpole and is a kind of a sabertooth is false if the pentode is a Arkansan. sent5: if the porkfish is not a sabertooth then that it sharpens and it is a kind of a tadpole is incorrect. sent6: the porkfish is Delphic. sent7: the earthworm plows if the porkfish is burrlike. sent8: something is atomistic if it is washable. sent9: the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike. sent10: something does plow if that it does sharpen is correct.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the skylark is a plowing is not wrong.

{C}{al}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the porkfish is a plowing. ; $context$ = sent1: if the earthworm is a plowing it is burrlike. sent2: the earthworm is burrlike. sent3: the pentode is a kind of a Arkansan. sent4: that the crossing is not a tadpole and is a kind of a sabertooth is false if the pentode is a Arkansan. sent5: if the porkfish is not a sabertooth then that it sharpens and it is a kind of a tadpole is incorrect. sent6: the porkfish is Delphic. sent7: the earthworm plows if the porkfish is burrlike. sent8: something is atomistic if it is washable. sent9: the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike. sent10: something does plow if that it does sharpen is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the porkfish does sharpen.; sent10 -> int2: if the porkfish does sharpen then it plows.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the porkfish does sharpen if the earthworm is burrlike.

If the earthworm is burrlike the porkfish will sharpen.

something does plow if that it does sharpen is correct.

that the recruit is unready is not wrong.

sent1: if something does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both then the time-switch is a timid. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the time-switch is a timid and/or does yield hold is not correct then the rhyolite is not unready. sent3: the egotist is a kind of a lectureship. sent4: if that the singer is an aphorism is true then either it does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both. sent5: the time-switch is Avestan. sent6: the mahogany is a insentience. sent7: the time-switch is a insentience. sent8: the singer is an aphorism. sent9: something is unready if it is a lectureship. sent10: if the time-switch is both a lectureship and a insentience then the fact that the recruit is not unready hold. sent11: the recruit urinates component and it is a jessamine. sent12: the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the rhyolite is a insentience.

{B}{hu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the recruit is unready is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both then the time-switch is a timid. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the time-switch is a timid and/or does yield hold is not correct then the rhyolite is not unready. sent3: the egotist is a kind of a lectureship. sent4: if that the singer is an aphorism is true then either it does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both. sent5: the time-switch is Avestan. sent6: the mahogany is a insentience. sent7: the time-switch is a insentience. sent8: the singer is an aphorism. sent9: something is unready if it is a lectureship. sent10: if the time-switch is both a lectureship and a insentience then the fact that the recruit is not unready hold. sent11: the recruit urinates component and it is a jessamine. sent12: the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent7 -> int1: the time-switch is a lectureship and it is a insentience.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship.

The time-switch is a kind of lectureship.

the time-switch is a insentience.

that the recruit is unready is not wrong.

sent1: if something does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both then the time-switch is a timid. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the time-switch is a timid and/or does yield hold is not correct then the rhyolite is not unready. sent3: the egotist is a kind of a lectureship. sent4: if that the singer is an aphorism is true then either it does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both. sent5: the time-switch is Avestan. sent6: the mahogany is a insentience. sent7: the time-switch is a insentience. sent8: the singer is an aphorism. sent9: something is unready if it is a lectureship. sent10: if the time-switch is both a lectureship and a insentience then the fact that the recruit is not unready hold. sent11: the recruit urinates component and it is a jessamine. sent12: the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the rhyolite is a insentience.

{B}{hu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the recruit is unready is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both then the time-switch is a timid. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the time-switch is a timid and/or does yield hold is not correct then the rhyolite is not unready. sent3: the egotist is a kind of a lectureship. sent4: if that the singer is an aphorism is true then either it does not urinate component or it is not a jessamine or both. sent5: the time-switch is Avestan. sent6: the mahogany is a insentience. sent7: the time-switch is a insentience. sent8: the singer is an aphorism. sent9: something is unready if it is a lectureship. sent10: if the time-switch is both a lectureship and a insentience then the fact that the recruit is not unready hold. sent11: the recruit urinates component and it is a jessamine. sent12: the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent7 -> int1: the time-switch is a lectureship and it is a insentience.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the time-switch is a kind of a lectureship.

The time-switch is a lectureship.

if the time-switch is both a lectureship and a insentience then the fact that the recruit is not unready hold.

the fact that there is something such that it is not asynchronous is not right.

sent1: the fact that everything does attack attack is not incorrect. sent2: if something attacks attack it is not corinthian and urinates haggler. sent3: if something that is not corinthian urinates haggler then the demographer does not adjourn. sent4: if there is something such that that it is both seaward and a Fresno is not right the sweat is not a kind of a Fresno. sent5: if the philistine does not bellow then the fact that the massicot is seaward and is a kind of a Fresno does not hold. sent6: the philistine is not a bellows if the demographer does not sibilate. sent7: if the sweat is not a Fresno then that the accompanist is a kind of pathological thing that is asynchronous is false. sent8: if the demographer does not adjourn then it does urinate transplant and is astomatal. sent9: the fact that the accompanist urinates Raffia and it is a Isherwood is not right. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Isherwood. sent11: if the accompanist is not a Isherwood the sweat is not asynchronous. sent12: the accompanist does not urinate Raffia if that the sweat is asynchronous a Isherwood is false. sent13: if that the accompanist does urinate Raffia and is a Isherwood does not hold then the sweat is not asynchronous. sent14: if something does urinate transplant then it does not sibilate and it is a Dido.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the accompanist is pathological and it is asynchronous does not hold.

¬({CP}{a} & {B}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is not asynchronous is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that everything does attack attack is not incorrect. sent2: if something attacks attack it is not corinthian and urinates haggler. sent3: if something that is not corinthian urinates haggler then the demographer does not adjourn. sent4: if there is something such that that it is both seaward and a Fresno is not right the sweat is not a kind of a Fresno. sent5: if the philistine does not bellow then the fact that the massicot is seaward and is a kind of a Fresno does not hold. sent6: the philistine is not a bellows if the demographer does not sibilate. sent7: if the sweat is not a Fresno then that the accompanist is a kind of pathological thing that is asynchronous is false. sent8: if the demographer does not adjourn then it does urinate transplant and is astomatal. sent9: the fact that the accompanist urinates Raffia and it is a Isherwood is not right. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Isherwood. sent11: if the accompanist is not a Isherwood the sweat is not asynchronous. sent12: the accompanist does not urinate Raffia if that the sweat is asynchronous a Isherwood is false. sent13: if that the accompanist does urinate Raffia and is a Isherwood does not hold then the sweat is not asynchronous. sent14: if something does urinate transplant then it does not sibilate and it is a Dido. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the sweat is not asynchronous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the accompanist does urinate Raffia and is a Isherwood does not hold then the sweat is not asynchronous.

if that the accompanist does urinate Raffia and is a Isherwood does not hold then the sweat is not asynchronous.

the fact that the accompanist urinates Raffia and it is a Isherwood is not right.

the fact that the pulling does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: the turning occurs if the gravitation happens. sent2: that the turn occurs prevents that the pulling does not occur. sent3: the gravitation happens. sent4: that the turning does not occur yields that the pull does not occur or the gravitation or both.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pull does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pulling does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the turning occurs if the gravitation happens. sent2: that the turn occurs prevents that the pulling does not occur. sent3: the gravitation happens. sent4: that the turning does not occur yields that the pull does not occur or the gravitation or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the turn happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the turning occurs if the gravitation happens.

If the gravitation happens, the turning occurs.

the gravitation happens.

the fact that the pulling does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: the turning occurs if the gravitation happens. sent2: that the turn occurs prevents that the pulling does not occur. sent3: the gravitation happens. sent4: that the turning does not occur yields that the pull does not occur or the gravitation or both.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pull does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pulling does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the turning occurs if the gravitation happens. sent2: that the turn occurs prevents that the pulling does not occur. sent3: the gravitation happens. sent4: that the turning does not occur yields that the pull does not occur or the gravitation or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the turn happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the turning occurs if the gravitation happens.

If the gravitation happens, the turning will happen.

that the turn occurs prevents that the pulling does not occur.

the archeologist is not a glutamate.

sent1: something is not a palmist but it is clayey. sent2: the archeologist is not a Thracian if something is not clayey. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a glutamate and is clayey does not hold. sent4: the archeologist is clayey. sent5: if the archeologist is not a palmist it is clayey. sent6: if the tremor is not worsted then it is not pervious. sent7: the fact that the dissociation is not clayey hold. sent8: the archeologist is not an oath but it is a kind of a macon. sent9: something is not a palmist but it is a glutamate. sent10: the archeologist is not cervical but it nibbles. sent11: if there exists something such that it is funerary then the fact that the archeologist is not a palmist is true. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a glutamate that is clayey is not true. sent13: the archeologist is explosive. sent14: that the archeologist is both not the glutamate and clayey if the archeologist is not a palmist is not false. sent15: there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct. sent16: if something is not a palmist it is both not a rage and a worsted. sent17: there is something such that it is non-funerary and not non-worsted. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-funerary and it worsts is wrong the archeologist is not a palmist. sent19: if something is not a glutamate the fact that the archeologist is not a kind of a palmist is right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it is funerary and it is worsted does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a palmist and is clayey is not true.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{FD}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent6: ¬{AB}{gg} -> {GB}{gg} sent7: ¬{C}{fg} sent8: (¬{FS}{a} & {GS}{a}) sent9: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent10: (¬{FM}{a} & {IJ}{a}) sent11: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent13: {HB}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{GN}x & {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent19: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent20: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the smoothhound is not a rage but it does worst is not false.

(¬{GN}{cr} & {AB}{cr})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the archeologist is not a glutamate. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a palmist but it is clayey. sent2: the archeologist is not a Thracian if something is not clayey. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a glutamate and is clayey does not hold. sent4: the archeologist is clayey. sent5: if the archeologist is not a palmist it is clayey. sent6: if the tremor is not worsted then it is not pervious. sent7: the fact that the dissociation is not clayey hold. sent8: the archeologist is not an oath but it is a kind of a macon. sent9: something is not a palmist but it is a glutamate. sent10: the archeologist is not cervical but it nibbles. sent11: if there exists something such that it is funerary then the fact that the archeologist is not a palmist is true. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a glutamate that is clayey is not true. sent13: the archeologist is explosive. sent14: that the archeologist is both not the glutamate and clayey if the archeologist is not a palmist is not false. sent15: there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct. sent16: if something is not a palmist it is both not a rage and a worsted. sent17: there is something such that it is non-funerary and not non-worsted. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-funerary and it worsts is wrong the archeologist is not a palmist. sent19: if something is not a glutamate the fact that the archeologist is not a kind of a palmist is right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it is funerary and it is worsted does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a palmist and is clayey is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent18 -> int1: the archeologist is not a palmist.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the archeologist is not a glutamate but it is clayey.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct.

It is not a funeral and a worsted is not correct.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-funerary and it worsts is wrong the archeologist is not a palmist.

the archeologist is not a glutamate.

sent1: something is not a palmist but it is clayey. sent2: the archeologist is not a Thracian if something is not clayey. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a glutamate and is clayey does not hold. sent4: the archeologist is clayey. sent5: if the archeologist is not a palmist it is clayey. sent6: if the tremor is not worsted then it is not pervious. sent7: the fact that the dissociation is not clayey hold. sent8: the archeologist is not an oath but it is a kind of a macon. sent9: something is not a palmist but it is a glutamate. sent10: the archeologist is not cervical but it nibbles. sent11: if there exists something such that it is funerary then the fact that the archeologist is not a palmist is true. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a glutamate that is clayey is not true. sent13: the archeologist is explosive. sent14: that the archeologist is both not the glutamate and clayey if the archeologist is not a palmist is not false. sent15: there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct. sent16: if something is not a palmist it is both not a rage and a worsted. sent17: there is something such that it is non-funerary and not non-worsted. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-funerary and it worsts is wrong the archeologist is not a palmist. sent19: if something is not a glutamate the fact that the archeologist is not a kind of a palmist is right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it is funerary and it is worsted does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a palmist and is clayey is not true.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{FD}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent6: ¬{AB}{gg} -> {GB}{gg} sent7: ¬{C}{fg} sent8: (¬{FS}{a} & {GS}{a}) sent9: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent10: (¬{FM}{a} & {IJ}{a}) sent11: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent13: {HB}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{GN}x & {AB}x) sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent19: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent20: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent21: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the smoothhound is not a rage but it does worst is not false.

(¬{GN}{cr} & {AB}{cr})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the archeologist is not a glutamate. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a palmist but it is clayey. sent2: the archeologist is not a Thracian if something is not clayey. sent3: there exists something such that that it is not a glutamate and is clayey does not hold. sent4: the archeologist is clayey. sent5: if the archeologist is not a palmist it is clayey. sent6: if the tremor is not worsted then it is not pervious. sent7: the fact that the dissociation is not clayey hold. sent8: the archeologist is not an oath but it is a kind of a macon. sent9: something is not a palmist but it is a glutamate. sent10: the archeologist is not cervical but it nibbles. sent11: if there exists something such that it is funerary then the fact that the archeologist is not a palmist is true. sent12: there exists something such that that it is a glutamate that is clayey is not true. sent13: the archeologist is explosive. sent14: that the archeologist is both not the glutamate and clayey if the archeologist is not a palmist is not false. sent15: there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct. sent16: if something is not a palmist it is both not a rage and a worsted. sent17: there is something such that it is non-funerary and not non-worsted. sent18: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-funerary and it worsts is wrong the archeologist is not a palmist. sent19: if something is not a glutamate the fact that the archeologist is not a kind of a palmist is right. sent20: there is something such that the fact that it is funerary and it is worsted does not hold. sent21: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a palmist and is clayey is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent18 -> int1: the archeologist is not a palmist.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the archeologist is not a glutamate but it is clayey.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is non-funerary and a worsted is not correct.

It is not a funeral and a worsted is incorrect.

that the archeologist is both not the glutamate and clayey if the archeologist is not a palmist is not false.

that something does cry or it is a Mandaean or both is wrong.

sent1: the fact that the windstorm is a crying that does not attack hexed is not correct. sent2: that that the windstorm is a kind of a Mandaean that does not attack substation is not false is false. sent3: the fact that the signet does obliterate and is a ductule is false if the fact that it is not stannic is not incorrect. sent4: that the windstorm is a Kursk and it is ebracteate does not hold. sent5: something is a Ms or it is air-to-air or both if it is not a crying. sent6: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of non-Mandaean a crying is false if it does not scoff is true. sent7: that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate is not correct. sent8: the harmonizer is a Mandaean if the windstorm is ebracteate. sent9: that the harmonizer is a Mandaean is correct if that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate does not hold. sent10: if that something is non-Mandaean but it does cry is false then that it is not a cry hold. sent11: something does not scoff if the fact that it obliterates and it is a kind of a ductule is not right.

¬((Ex): ({A}x v {B}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the signet is either a Ms or air-to-air or both.

({HB}{ei} v {GI}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something does cry or it is a Mandaean or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the windstorm is a crying that does not attack hexed is not correct. sent2: that that the windstorm is a kind of a Mandaean that does not attack substation is not false is false. sent3: the fact that the signet does obliterate and is a ductule is false if the fact that it is not stannic is not incorrect. sent4: that the windstorm is a Kursk and it is ebracteate does not hold. sent5: something is a Ms or it is air-to-air or both if it is not a crying. sent6: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of non-Mandaean a crying is false if it does not scoff is true. sent7: that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate is not correct. sent8: the harmonizer is a Mandaean if the windstorm is ebracteate. sent9: that the harmonizer is a Mandaean is correct if that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate does not hold. sent10: if that something is non-Mandaean but it does cry is false then that it is not a cry hold. sent11: something does not scoff if the fact that it obliterates and it is a kind of a ductule is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the harmonizer is a Mandaean.; int1 -> int2: the harmonizer cries or it is a Mandaean or both.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the harmonizer is a Mandaean is correct if that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate does not hold.

that the harmonizer is a Mandaean is correct if that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate does not hold.

that the windstorm is a Kursk but it is not ebracteate is not correct.

the drowning topic happens.

sent1: the fact that both the exoneration and the non-unmusicalness happens is not correct if the worthiness occurs. sent2: if the drowning pyrostat happens then the fact that the sending happens and the urinating etamine does not occur is not correct. sent3: the drowning topic does not occur if that the drowning topic happens but the drowning tabbouleh does not occur is false. sent4: the metastableness does not occur if that the attacking Raffia but not the blindness occurs does not hold. sent5: if the electrocardiographicness occurs the fact that both the devoir and the drowning Oenanthe occurs is not true. sent6: that the raffle does not occur results in that the happiness happens and the unevenness happens. sent7: the fact that the irradiating happens and the leering percolation does not occur is false. sent8: that the Curietherapy does not occur is prevented by that the vaginismus does not occur. sent9: that the fact that the drowning tabbouleh happens and the electrocardiographicness does not occur is incorrect if the happiness happens hold. sent10: if the electrocardiographicness happens the fact that the devoir occurs but the drowning Oenanthe does not occur does not hold. sent11: the forgettableness does not occur if that the mistake happens and the teachership does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that if the drowning tabbouleh does not occur then the drowning topic happens hold. sent13: if the drowning Oenanthe occurs then the drowning tabbouleh does not occur. sent14: the drowning tabbouleh does not occur if the fact that the devoir happens but the drowning Oenanthe does not occur does not hold. sent15: if that the electrocardiographicness does not occur hold then the fact that the drowning topic but not the drowning tabbouleh happens is incorrect. sent16: the electrocardiographicness and/or that the drowning tabbouleh occurs is caused by that the drowning topic does not occur. sent17: the leering percolation occurs. sent18: that the urinating constrictor does not occur results in that the Bam occurs. sent19: that the devoir and the drowning Oenanthe occurs is wrong. sent20: that the exoneration happens but the leering Weser does not occur does not hold.

{C}

sent1: {IC} -> ¬({HO} & ¬{HL}) sent2: {BT} -> ¬({BJ} & ¬{ET}) sent3: ¬({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬({HM} & ¬{IK}) -> ¬{FB} sent5: {A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: ¬({HS} & ¬{M}) sent8: ¬{EB} -> {HC} sent9: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent10: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬({AP} & ¬{IM}) -> ¬{FI} sent12: ¬{B} -> {C} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & ¬{B}) sent16: ¬{C} -> ({A} v {B}) sent17: {M} sent18: ¬{GK} -> {GT} sent19: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent20: ¬({HO} & ¬{GN})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bed happens.

{FO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the drowning topic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the exoneration and the non-unmusicalness happens is not correct if the worthiness occurs. sent2: if the drowning pyrostat happens then the fact that the sending happens and the urinating etamine does not occur is not correct. sent3: the drowning topic does not occur if that the drowning topic happens but the drowning tabbouleh does not occur is false. sent4: the metastableness does not occur if that the attacking Raffia but not the blindness occurs does not hold. sent5: if the electrocardiographicness occurs the fact that both the devoir and the drowning Oenanthe occurs is not true. sent6: that the raffle does not occur results in that the happiness happens and the unevenness happens. sent7: the fact that the irradiating happens and the leering percolation does not occur is false. sent8: that the Curietherapy does not occur is prevented by that the vaginismus does not occur. sent9: that the fact that the drowning tabbouleh happens and the electrocardiographicness does not occur is incorrect if the happiness happens hold. sent10: if the electrocardiographicness happens the fact that the devoir occurs but the drowning Oenanthe does not occur does not hold. sent11: the forgettableness does not occur if that the mistake happens and the teachership does not occur is not right. sent12: the fact that if the drowning tabbouleh does not occur then the drowning topic happens hold. sent13: if the drowning Oenanthe occurs then the drowning tabbouleh does not occur. sent14: the drowning tabbouleh does not occur if the fact that the devoir happens but the drowning Oenanthe does not occur does not hold. sent15: if that the electrocardiographicness does not occur hold then the fact that the drowning topic but not the drowning tabbouleh happens is incorrect. sent16: the electrocardiographicness and/or that the drowning tabbouleh occurs is caused by that the drowning topic does not occur. sent17: the leering percolation occurs. sent18: that the urinating constrictor does not occur results in that the Bam occurs. sent19: that the devoir and the drowning Oenanthe occurs is wrong. sent20: that the exoneration happens but the leering Weser does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the drowning topic does not occur if that the drowning topic happens but the drowning tabbouleh does not occur is false.

the drowning topic does not occur if that the drowning topic happens but the drowning tabbouleh does not occur is false.

if the drowning pyrostat happens then the fact that the sending happens and the urinating etamine does not occur is not correct.

the contrivance does remove and is an opener.

sent1: the fact that the mere is not a give and does not urinate eft does not hold. sent2: the contrivance is a kind of a blasted. sent3: if something is not other that it is a kind of a remove and is a kind of an opener is false. sent4: if that the mere is not restless but a blasted does not hold then the contrivance is a blasted. sent5: if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other. sent6: the fact that the mere is a kind of a give that does not urinate eft is false. sent7: the windstorm is a chunnel and does not leer eft. sent8: the contrivance blasts and it does remove. sent9: the mere is other if it is a give.

({C}{b} & {A}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the contrivance does remove and is an opener is incorrect.

¬({C}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the contrivance does remove and is an opener. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mere is not a give and does not urinate eft does not hold. sent2: the contrivance is a kind of a blasted. sent3: if something is not other that it is a kind of a remove and is a kind of an opener is false. sent4: if that the mere is not restless but a blasted does not hold then the contrivance is a blasted. sent5: if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other. sent6: the fact that the mere is a kind of a give that does not urinate eft is false. sent7: the windstorm is a chunnel and does not leer eft. sent8: the contrivance blasts and it does remove. sent9: the mere is other if it is a give. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other.

It is not true if the mere does not give and it does not urinate.

the fact that the mere is not a give and does not urinate eft does not hold.

the contrivance does remove and is an opener.

sent1: the fact that the mere is not a give and does not urinate eft does not hold. sent2: the contrivance is a kind of a blasted. sent3: if something is not other that it is a kind of a remove and is a kind of an opener is false. sent4: if that the mere is not restless but a blasted does not hold then the contrivance is a blasted. sent5: if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other. sent6: the fact that the mere is a kind of a give that does not urinate eft is false. sent7: the windstorm is a chunnel and does not leer eft. sent8: the contrivance blasts and it does remove. sent9: the mere is other if it is a give.

({C}{b} & {A}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the contrivance does remove and is an opener is incorrect.

¬({C}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the contrivance does remove and is an opener. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the mere is not a give and does not urinate eft does not hold. sent2: the contrivance is a kind of a blasted. sent3: if something is not other that it is a kind of a remove and is a kind of an opener is false. sent4: if that the mere is not restless but a blasted does not hold then the contrivance is a blasted. sent5: if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other. sent6: the fact that the mere is a kind of a give that does not urinate eft is false. sent7: the windstorm is a chunnel and does not leer eft. sent8: the contrivance blasts and it does remove. sent9: the mere is other if it is a give. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the mere does not give and it does not urinate eft is not true it is other.

It is not true that the mere does not give and does not urinate.

the contrivance blasts and it does remove.

the malignness occurs.

sent1: the malignness happens and the scalage occurs if that the heartbreaker does not occur is right. sent2: the fact that the reversion does not occur is right if that the scalage happens and the heartbreaker happens is incorrect. sent3: the syndeticness occurs. sent4: if the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur the nomotheticness does not occur. sent5: that not the filibustering but the syndeticness happens is false if the reversion does not occur. sent6: that the fact that the urinating corrective does not occur is not false if the semioticsness does not occur is true. sent7: that the cross-fertilization does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the filibustering does not occur and the reversion occurs is not correct the filibustering happens. sent9: the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs. sent10: the consolableness does not occur if the urinating salesclerk happens. sent11: the fact that the scalage occurs and the heartbreaker happens is not right if the nomotheticness does not occur. sent12: the repulsiveness does not occur if the lysogenicness does not occur. sent13: if the filibuster does not occur then the malignness does not occur. sent14: if the ontologicalness happens the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur. sent15: if the attacking Capital occurs the urinating cynancum does not occur. sent16: the reversion does not occur if the scalage does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the filibuster does not occur but the syndeticness happens does not hold the malignness occurs. sent18: the wrath does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent2: ¬({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent3: {A} sent4: (¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent6: ¬{IA} -> ¬{EI} sent7: ¬{FQ} sent8: ¬(¬{B} & {D}) -> {B} sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: {CM} -> ¬{K} sent11: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & {F}) sent12: ¬{FC} -> ¬{EC} sent13: ¬{B} -> ¬{C} sent14: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent15: {GQ} -> ¬{DL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {C} sent18: ¬{JK}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the malignness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the malignness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the malignness happens and the scalage occurs if that the heartbreaker does not occur is right. sent2: the fact that the reversion does not occur is right if that the scalage happens and the heartbreaker happens is incorrect. sent3: the syndeticness occurs. sent4: if the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur the nomotheticness does not occur. sent5: that not the filibustering but the syndeticness happens is false if the reversion does not occur. sent6: that the fact that the urinating corrective does not occur is not false if the semioticsness does not occur is true. sent7: that the cross-fertilization does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the filibustering does not occur and the reversion occurs is not correct the filibustering happens. sent9: the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs. sent10: the consolableness does not occur if the urinating salesclerk happens. sent11: the fact that the scalage occurs and the heartbreaker happens is not right if the nomotheticness does not occur. sent12: the repulsiveness does not occur if the lysogenicness does not occur. sent13: if the filibuster does not occur then the malignness does not occur. sent14: if the ontologicalness happens the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur. sent15: if the attacking Capital occurs the urinating cynancum does not occur. sent16: the reversion does not occur if the scalage does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the filibuster does not occur but the syndeticness happens does not hold the malignness occurs. sent18: the wrath does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the filibuster does not occur.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs.

If syndeticness occurs, the filibuster won't happen.

the syndeticness occurs.

the malignness occurs.

sent1: the malignness happens and the scalage occurs if that the heartbreaker does not occur is right. sent2: the fact that the reversion does not occur is right if that the scalage happens and the heartbreaker happens is incorrect. sent3: the syndeticness occurs. sent4: if the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur the nomotheticness does not occur. sent5: that not the filibustering but the syndeticness happens is false if the reversion does not occur. sent6: that the fact that the urinating corrective does not occur is not false if the semioticsness does not occur is true. sent7: that the cross-fertilization does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the filibustering does not occur and the reversion occurs is not correct the filibustering happens. sent9: the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs. sent10: the consolableness does not occur if the urinating salesclerk happens. sent11: the fact that the scalage occurs and the heartbreaker happens is not right if the nomotheticness does not occur. sent12: the repulsiveness does not occur if the lysogenicness does not occur. sent13: if the filibuster does not occur then the malignness does not occur. sent14: if the ontologicalness happens the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur. sent15: if the attacking Capital occurs the urinating cynancum does not occur. sent16: the reversion does not occur if the scalage does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the filibuster does not occur but the syndeticness happens does not hold the malignness occurs. sent18: the wrath does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent2: ¬({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent3: {A} sent4: (¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent6: ¬{IA} -> ¬{EI} sent7: ¬{FQ} sent8: ¬(¬{B} & {D}) -> {B} sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: {CM} -> ¬{K} sent11: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & {F}) sent12: ¬{FC} -> ¬{EC} sent13: ¬{B} -> ¬{C} sent14: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent15: {GQ} -> ¬{DL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬{D} sent17: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {C} sent18: ¬{JK}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the malignness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the malignness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the malignness happens and the scalage occurs if that the heartbreaker does not occur is right. sent2: the fact that the reversion does not occur is right if that the scalage happens and the heartbreaker happens is incorrect. sent3: the syndeticness occurs. sent4: if the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur the nomotheticness does not occur. sent5: that not the filibustering but the syndeticness happens is false if the reversion does not occur. sent6: that the fact that the urinating corrective does not occur is not false if the semioticsness does not occur is true. sent7: that the cross-fertilization does not occur is true. sent8: if the fact that the filibustering does not occur and the reversion occurs is not correct the filibustering happens. sent9: the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs. sent10: the consolableness does not occur if the urinating salesclerk happens. sent11: the fact that the scalage occurs and the heartbreaker happens is not right if the nomotheticness does not occur. sent12: the repulsiveness does not occur if the lysogenicness does not occur. sent13: if the filibuster does not occur then the malignness does not occur. sent14: if the ontologicalness happens the bathymetry does not occur and the urinating canned does not occur. sent15: if the attacking Capital occurs the urinating cynancum does not occur. sent16: the reversion does not occur if the scalage does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the filibuster does not occur but the syndeticness happens does not hold the malignness occurs. sent18: the wrath does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the filibuster does not occur.; sent13 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the filibuster does not occur if the syndeticness occurs.

If syndeticness occurs, the filibuster will not happen.

if the filibuster does not occur then the malignness does not occur.

the articulator does awaken.

sent1: something does leer percolation and it is a mulligatawny if it is not zoological. sent2: the articulator is not a countermine and wreathes. sent3: the Hemofil is a mulligatawny. sent4: if something does leer percolation then it awakens. sent5: something does attack statistic if it awakens. sent6: if the articulator does not leer percolation it is multiform and is a parricide.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (¬{IP}{aa} & {JE}{aa}) sent3: {AB}{u} sent4: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ({DF}{aa} & {HM}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the articulator does awaken. ; $context$ = sent1: something does leer percolation and it is a mulligatawny if it is not zoological. sent2: the articulator is not a countermine and wreathes. sent3: the Hemofil is a mulligatawny. sent4: if something does leer percolation then it awakens. sent5: something does attack statistic if it awakens. sent6: if the articulator does not leer percolation it is multiform and is a parricide. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does leer percolation and it is a mulligatawny if it is not zoological.

something does leer percolation and it is a mulligatawny if it is not zoological.

if something does leer percolation then it awakens.

the recurring does not occur.

sent1: the debasing occurs and the fallibleness occurs if the impiousness does not occur. sent2: the recurring and the unbracing happens if the longitudinalness does not occur. sent3: that both the unbracing and the haploid occurs is triggered by that the longitudinalness does not occur. sent4: that both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens yields that the recurring does not occur. sent5: the unbracing occurs. sent6: the race and the debasing occurs if the fenestration does not occur. sent7: the Miss happens if the verbalness happens. sent8: not the impiousness but the drowning Higi occurs if the spraying happens. sent9: the longitudinalness occurs. sent10: if the Miss happens then the fact that the spraying occurs hold. sent11: if the urinating raree-show does not occur then the fact that both the recurring and the longitudinalness occurs is wrong. sent12: that either the race does not occur or the fenestration does not occur or both leads to that the race does not occur. sent13: the urinating raree-show is prevented by that the race occurs. sent14: the harvest happens and the circumduction occurs. sent15: that the race does not occur and/or the fenestration does not occur is caused by that the debasing happens.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the recurring occurs is true.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recurring does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the debasing occurs and the fallibleness occurs if the impiousness does not occur. sent2: the recurring and the unbracing happens if the longitudinalness does not occur. sent3: that both the unbracing and the haploid occurs is triggered by that the longitudinalness does not occur. sent4: that both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens yields that the recurring does not occur. sent5: the unbracing occurs. sent6: the race and the debasing occurs if the fenestration does not occur. sent7: the Miss happens if the verbalness happens. sent8: not the impiousness but the drowning Higi occurs if the spraying happens. sent9: the longitudinalness occurs. sent10: if the Miss happens then the fact that the spraying occurs hold. sent11: if the urinating raree-show does not occur then the fact that both the recurring and the longitudinalness occurs is wrong. sent12: that either the race does not occur or the fenestration does not occur or both leads to that the race does not occur. sent13: the urinating raree-show is prevented by that the race occurs. sent14: the harvest happens and the circumduction occurs. sent15: that the race does not occur and/or the fenestration does not occur is caused by that the debasing happens. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent9 -> int1: both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unbracing occurs.

The unbracing happens.

the longitudinalness occurs.

the recurring does not occur.

sent1: the debasing occurs and the fallibleness occurs if the impiousness does not occur. sent2: the recurring and the unbracing happens if the longitudinalness does not occur. sent3: that both the unbracing and the haploid occurs is triggered by that the longitudinalness does not occur. sent4: that both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens yields that the recurring does not occur. sent5: the unbracing occurs. sent6: the race and the debasing occurs if the fenestration does not occur. sent7: the Miss happens if the verbalness happens. sent8: not the impiousness but the drowning Higi occurs if the spraying happens. sent9: the longitudinalness occurs. sent10: if the Miss happens then the fact that the spraying occurs hold. sent11: if the urinating raree-show does not occur then the fact that both the recurring and the longitudinalness occurs is wrong. sent12: that either the race does not occur or the fenestration does not occur or both leads to that the race does not occur. sent13: the urinating raree-show is prevented by that the race occurs. sent14: the harvest happens and the circumduction occurs. sent15: that the race does not occur and/or the fenestration does not occur is caused by that the debasing happens.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the recurring occurs is true.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the recurring does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the debasing occurs and the fallibleness occurs if the impiousness does not occur. sent2: the recurring and the unbracing happens if the longitudinalness does not occur. sent3: that both the unbracing and the haploid occurs is triggered by that the longitudinalness does not occur. sent4: that both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens yields that the recurring does not occur. sent5: the unbracing occurs. sent6: the race and the debasing occurs if the fenestration does not occur. sent7: the Miss happens if the verbalness happens. sent8: not the impiousness but the drowning Higi occurs if the spraying happens. sent9: the longitudinalness occurs. sent10: if the Miss happens then the fact that the spraying occurs hold. sent11: if the urinating raree-show does not occur then the fact that both the recurring and the longitudinalness occurs is wrong. sent12: that either the race does not occur or the fenestration does not occur or both leads to that the race does not occur. sent13: the urinating raree-show is prevented by that the race occurs. sent14: the harvest happens and the circumduction occurs. sent15: that the race does not occur and/or the fenestration does not occur is caused by that the debasing happens. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent9 -> int1: both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unbracing occurs.

The unbracing occurs.

that both the unbracing and the longitudinalness happens yields that the recurring does not occur.

the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the attacking agreeableness does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur.

The attacking agreeableness doesn't happen if the ambassadorship happens.

the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur.

the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the attacking agreeableness does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur.

The attacking agreeableness does not happen if the ambassadorship happens.

if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold.

the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Orphicness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false. sent2: the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur. sent3: the ambassadorship occurs and the dispensing does not occur. sent4: if the attacking agreeableness does not occur then that the hang happens and/or the wavering does not occur does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the attacking agreeableness does not occur.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the attacking agreeableness does not occur if the ambassadorship happens but the dispensing does not occur.

The attacking agreeableness doesn't occur if the ambassadorship happens.

the Orphicness occurs if that the hanging occurs and/or the wavering does not occur is false.

that there exists something such that it urinates aberrance and is a greave does not hold.

sent1: there exists something such that it does attack stencil. sent2: the AU urinates aberrance and is calcic. sent3: there is something such that it is a kerion and dissembles. sent4: the apiary is a catapult and is a kind of a greave. sent5: there is something such that it is a saw and a tiptoe. sent6: the Alexandrian urinates aberrance. sent7: the pyroxene is a divi-divi and it does urinate aberrance. sent8: there is something such that it is a charm that does drown ridge. sent9: the Alexandrian is a hydrogen. sent10: there exists something such that it is a stableman and it is a GOP. sent11: The aberrance urinates Alexandrian. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is bipolar is not false. sent13: the Alexandrian is a kind of a greave. sent14: the mansion urinates aberrance. sent15: there is something such that it dissembles. sent16: there exists something such that it is longitudinal. sent17: the Alexandrian drowns mansion. sent18: the Alexandrian is a starlet. sent19: something is aspectual and drowns elastomer.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: (Ex): {AN}x sent2: ({A}{hp} & {FF}{hp}) sent3: (Ex): ({G}x & {HE}x) sent4: ({HU}{t} & {B}{t}) sent5: (Ex): ({AM}x & {GS}x) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ({BH}{er} & {A}{er}) sent8: (Ex): ({BP}x & {EK}x) sent9: {AS}{a} sent10: (Ex): ({GH}x & {FD}x) sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {R}x sent13: {B}{a} sent14: {A}{bd} sent15: (Ex): {HE}x sent16: (Ex): {DP}x sent17: {AG}{a} sent18: {EB}{a} sent19: (Ex): ({IF}x & {BK}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it urinates aberrance and is a greave does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does attack stencil. sent2: the AU urinates aberrance and is calcic. sent3: there is something such that it is a kerion and dissembles. sent4: the apiary is a catapult and is a kind of a greave. sent5: there is something such that it is a saw and a tiptoe. sent6: the Alexandrian urinates aberrance. sent7: the pyroxene is a divi-divi and it does urinate aberrance. sent8: there is something such that it is a charm that does drown ridge. sent9: the Alexandrian is a hydrogen. sent10: there exists something such that it is a stableman and it is a GOP. sent11: The aberrance urinates Alexandrian. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is bipolar is not false. sent13: the Alexandrian is a kind of a greave. sent14: the mansion urinates aberrance. sent15: there is something such that it dissembles. sent16: there exists something such that it is longitudinal. sent17: the Alexandrian drowns mansion. sent18: the Alexandrian is a starlet. sent19: something is aspectual and drowns elastomer. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent13 -> int1: the Alexandrian urinates aberrance and it is a greave.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Alexandrian urinates aberrance.

the Alexandrian urinates aberrance.

the Alexandrian is a kind of a greave.

the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and it is legitimate is not correct.

sent1: the fact that the sweep drowns phon and is a fundamentals is incorrect if something is unfavorable. sent2: if the AC answers it is not a Aporocactus. sent3: something is not a sphygmomanometer. sent4: that the sweep does drown phon and it is a kind of a fundamentals is not right. sent5: the tropics is legitimate if that the sweep does not drown phon and/or it is a fundamentals does not hold. sent6: if the tropics is a fundamentals then it is not legitimate. sent7: something is not a puddingwife if it is roentgenographic or it does not mire or both. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a fundamentals then that the tropics does not drown phon and legitimates is incorrect. sent9: if the fact that something does not leer Elam and it is not a supplementation is false it is a supplementation. sent10: if the sweep is illegitimate then the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and is illegitimate is wrong. sent11: if something is not a puddingwife it drowns chimera and is unfavorable. sent12: there exists something such that it is unfavorable. sent13: the tropics is roentgenographic and/or it is not a kind of a mire if the fact that it is a supplementation is not wrong. sent14: the fact that the tropics does not leer Elam and is not a supplementation does not hold if it does not leer sweep. sent15: if the fact that the sweep does not drown phon and is a fundamentals is not true then it does not legitimate. sent16: if the sweep does drown phon it does not legitimate.

¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tropics drowns chimera and legitimates.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and it is legitimate is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the sweep drowns phon and is a fundamentals is incorrect if something is unfavorable. sent2: if the AC answers it is not a Aporocactus. sent3: something is not a sphygmomanometer. sent4: that the sweep does drown phon and it is a kind of a fundamentals is not right. sent5: the tropics is legitimate if that the sweep does not drown phon and/or it is a fundamentals does not hold. sent6: if the tropics is a fundamentals then it is not legitimate. sent7: something is not a puddingwife if it is roentgenographic or it does not mire or both. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a fundamentals then that the tropics does not drown phon and legitimates is incorrect. sent9: if the fact that something does not leer Elam and it is not a supplementation is false it is a supplementation. sent10: if the sweep is illegitimate then the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and is illegitimate is wrong. sent11: if something is not a puddingwife it drowns chimera and is unfavorable. sent12: there exists something such that it is unfavorable. sent13: the tropics is roentgenographic and/or it is not a kind of a mire if the fact that it is a supplementation is not wrong. sent14: the fact that the tropics does not leer Elam and is not a supplementation does not hold if it does not leer sweep. sent15: if the fact that the sweep does not drown phon and is a fundamentals is not true then it does not legitimate. sent16: if the sweep does drown phon it does not legitimate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the sweep is illegitimate then the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and is illegitimate is wrong.

if the sweep is illegitimate then the fact that the tropics drowns chimera and is illegitimate is wrong.

if the fact that something does not leer Elam and it is not a supplementation is false it is a supplementation.

the pelisse is erythropoietic.

sent1: something is not erythropoietic if that it is both geostrategic and not technophobic is false. sent2: everything is a framing and it is consolable. sent3: the signorina is non-technophobic. sent4: the fact that the pelisse is not nonunion is correct. sent5: the fact that the pelisse is erythropoietic and does not attack brutalization is not true. sent6: there is nothing that is a kind of geostrategic thing that is not technophobic. sent7: if the fact that something urinates natatorium and does not attack ureterocele is wrong then it is not a Werfel. sent8: something is not a kind of a Arabist if it is a retrovision. sent9: if there exists something such that it is erythropoietic that the pelisse does sprint and does not urinate percolation is false. sent10: the fact that the kisser is eccrine but it is not Procrustean is wrong. sent11: that the pelisse is both erythropoietic and non-Judaic does not hold. sent12: something does not attack brutalization if that it is oleophobic thing that does not attack porch does not hold.

{A}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent2: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬{AB}{e} sent4: ¬{BF}{aa} sent5: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{HC}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬({GP}x & ¬{GO}x) -> ¬{FA}x sent8: (x): {EM}x -> ¬{Q}x sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({HN}{aa} & ¬{U}{aa}) sent10: ¬({F}{iu} & ¬{IC}{iu}) sent11: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{DE}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬({IL}x & ¬{HA}x) -> ¬{HC}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the pelisse sprints but it does not urinate percolation is not right.

¬({HN}{aa} & ¬{U}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pelisse is erythropoietic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not erythropoietic if that it is both geostrategic and not technophobic is false. sent2: everything is a framing and it is consolable. sent3: the signorina is non-technophobic. sent4: the fact that the pelisse is not nonunion is correct. sent5: the fact that the pelisse is erythropoietic and does not attack brutalization is not true. sent6: there is nothing that is a kind of geostrategic thing that is not technophobic. sent7: if the fact that something urinates natatorium and does not attack ureterocele is wrong then it is not a Werfel. sent8: something is not a kind of a Arabist if it is a retrovision. sent9: if there exists something such that it is erythropoietic that the pelisse does sprint and does not urinate percolation is false. sent10: the fact that the kisser is eccrine but it is not Procrustean is wrong. sent11: that the pelisse is both erythropoietic and non-Judaic does not hold. sent12: something does not attack brutalization if that it is oleophobic thing that does not attack porch does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the fact that the pelisse is geostrategic and is not technophobic is incorrect.; sent1 -> int2: if the fact that the pelisse is a kind of geostrategic thing that is not technophobic is incorrect then it is not erythropoietic.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that is a kind of geostrategic thing that is not technophobic.

there is nothing that is a kind of geostrategic thing that is not technophobic.

something is not erythropoietic if that it is both geostrategic and not technophobic is false.

that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold.

sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the puttyroot does attack Mobile.; sent1 -> int2: the puttyroot does evert if it does attack Mobile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the puttyroot does evert is true.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct.

The fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates is not correct.

if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile.

that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold.

sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the puttyroot does attack Mobile.; sent1 -> int2: the puttyroot does evert if it does attack Mobile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the puttyroot does evert is true.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct.

The fact that it does drown rectangularity is not correct.

something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect.

that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold.

sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something everts if the fact that it does attack Mobile is not incorrect. sent2: if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold. sent3: there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct. sent4: if there is something such that that it drowns rectangularity and does urinate puttyroot is wrong the puttyroot does attack Mobile. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the puttyroot does attack Mobile.; sent1 -> int2: the puttyroot does evert if it does attack Mobile.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the puttyroot does evert is true.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that the fact that it does drown rectangularity and it urinates puttyroot is right is not correct.

The fact that it urinates and drowns rectangularity is not correct.

if the puttyroot everts then that the Mobile is a kind of a spacesuit hold.

there exists something such that if it is non-elemental it is not a boatmanship and does urinate carnation.

sent1: something is not a kind of a handstand but it is eruptive if it does not drown Dimetane. sent2: the cymbalist is not a kind of a boatmanship but it does urinate carnation if it is elemental. sent3: there is something such that if it is not elemental then it does urinate carnation. sent4: if the carnation is not impenitent then it does not leer tension and it is a gunpowder. sent5: there exists something such that if it is elemental it is not a boatmanship and does urinate carnation. sent6: something that is elemental is not a boatmanship and urinates carnation. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a feline is not false then that it is not bacteriophagic and it is temperate is right. sent8: the fact that something is not a abstainer and drowns muscovite if it is not a kind of a simper hold. sent9: if something does not drown interstate then it is both not a tropic and a bolt. sent10: that there exists something such that if it is not elemental it is a boatmanship and it does urinate carnation is right. sent11: there is something such that if it is not elemental it is not a boatmanship. sent12: something is non-Dantean but it is uninfluential if it does not drown interstate. sent13: the cymbalist is not a bolt but it is unmilitary if it is not Dantean. sent14: if the cymbalist is not elemental then it is a boatmanship that urinates carnation. sent15: something is not a kind of a requested and does urinate axiology if it is not a Gaskell. sent16: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not bardic then it is both non-homonymic and cogitative is not wrong. sent17: something does not drown lilt but it is nonmonotonic if the fact that it is not a kind of a despite is correct. sent18: there is something such that if it is not comatose then it does not urinate puttyroot and is phenotypical. sent19: if the cymbalist is not elemental it does urinate carnation.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{EL}x & {AT}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent4: ¬{GP}{jj} -> (¬{IR}{jj} & {HP}{jj}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{BT}x -> (¬{FJ}x & {AO}x) sent8: (x): ¬{CF}x -> (¬{BR}x & {CC}x) sent9: (x): ¬{CG}x -> (¬{EO}x & {DF}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: (x): ¬{CG}x -> (¬{DS}x & {DR}x) sent13: ¬{DS}{aa} -> (¬{DF}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) sent14: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬{AI}x -> (¬{FD}x & {GE}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{BK}x -> (¬{BQ}x & {HO}x) sent17: (x): ¬{IL}x -> (¬{DD}x & {HE}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{IP}x -> (¬{GI}x & {O}x) sent19: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is non-elemental it is not a boatmanship and does urinate carnation. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a handstand but it is eruptive if it does not drown Dimetane. sent2: the cymbalist is not a kind of a boatmanship but it does urinate carnation if it is elemental. sent3: there is something such that if it is not elemental then it does urinate carnation. sent4: if the carnation is not impenitent then it does not leer tension and it is a gunpowder. sent5: there exists something such that if it is elemental it is not a boatmanship and does urinate carnation. sent6: something that is elemental is not a boatmanship and urinates carnation. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a feline is not false then that it is not bacteriophagic and it is temperate is right. sent8: the fact that something is not a abstainer and drowns muscovite if it is not a kind of a simper hold. sent9: if something does not drown interstate then it is both not a tropic and a bolt. sent10: that there exists something such that if it is not elemental it is a boatmanship and it does urinate carnation is right. sent11: there is something such that if it is not elemental it is not a boatmanship. sent12: something is non-Dantean but it is uninfluential if it does not drown interstate. sent13: the cymbalist is not a bolt but it is unmilitary if it is not Dantean. sent14: if the cymbalist is not elemental then it is a boatmanship that urinates carnation. sent15: something is not a kind of a requested and does urinate axiology if it is not a Gaskell. sent16: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not bardic then it is both non-homonymic and cogitative is not wrong. sent17: something does not drown lilt but it is nonmonotonic if the fact that it is not a kind of a despite is correct. sent18: there is something such that if it is not comatose then it does not urinate puttyroot and is phenotypical. sent19: if the cymbalist is not elemental it does urinate carnation. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not elemental it is a boatmanship and it does urinate carnation is right.

that there exists something such that if it is not elemental it is a boatmanship and it does urinate carnation is right.

there is something such that if it is not elemental it is not a boatmanship.

the craw is not synonymous.

sent1: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and it is not an enforcer is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent2: something is a Tien-pao. sent3: the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer does not hold. sent4: the fact that the brew is a kind of non-parietal thing that is a Melospiza does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao then the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is false. sent6: something is not a Tien-pao. sent7: the craw is synonymous if the fact that it does not urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is not correct. sent8: something is not synonymous if that it is a kind of a confessional that is synonymous is not right. sent9: something is not a Tien-pao if the fact that it is a kind of a Tien-pao that is not an enforcer does not hold. sent10: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is not correct. sent11: the fact that that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is true is false if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent12: if there is something such that it is a Melospiza that the moonflower is a kind of a confessional and it is synonymous does not hold. sent13: if something is not a Tien-pao then the fact that it is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is wrong. sent14: if something is not synonymous the fact that the craw is a kind of an enforcer but it does not urinate Cepheus does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Tien-pao and it does not urinate Cepheus then it is non-synonymous. sent16: the fact that the craw is a eightpence hold. sent17: the craw is a Melospiza.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{DT}{fr} & {E}{fr}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: (x): {E}x -> ¬({F}{ca} & {D}{ca}) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DA}x & ¬{B}x) sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent16: {IU}{a} sent17: {E}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the moonflower is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is false.

¬(¬{DA}{ca} & ¬{B}{ca})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the craw is not synonymous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and it is not an enforcer is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent2: something is a Tien-pao. sent3: the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer does not hold. sent4: the fact that the brew is a kind of non-parietal thing that is a Melospiza does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao then the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is false. sent6: something is not a Tien-pao. sent7: the craw is synonymous if the fact that it does not urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is not correct. sent8: something is not synonymous if that it is a kind of a confessional that is synonymous is not right. sent9: something is not a Tien-pao if the fact that it is a kind of a Tien-pao that is not an enforcer does not hold. sent10: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is not correct. sent11: the fact that that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is true is false if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent12: if there is something such that it is a Melospiza that the moonflower is a kind of a confessional and it is synonymous does not hold. sent13: if something is not a Tien-pao then the fact that it is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is wrong. sent14: if something is not synonymous the fact that the craw is a kind of an enforcer but it does not urinate Cepheus does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Tien-pao and it does not urinate Cepheus then it is non-synonymous. sent16: the fact that the craw is a eightpence hold. sent17: the craw is a Melospiza. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: that the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is not a kind of an enforcer is not incorrect is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not a Tien-pao.

Something isn't a Tien-pao.

the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and it is not an enforcer is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a Tien-pao.

the craw is not synonymous.

sent1: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and it is not an enforcer is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent2: something is a Tien-pao. sent3: the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer does not hold. sent4: the fact that the brew is a kind of non-parietal thing that is a Melospiza does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao then the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is false. sent6: something is not a Tien-pao. sent7: the craw is synonymous if the fact that it does not urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is not correct. sent8: something is not synonymous if that it is a kind of a confessional that is synonymous is not right. sent9: something is not a Tien-pao if the fact that it is a kind of a Tien-pao that is not an enforcer does not hold. sent10: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is not correct. sent11: the fact that that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is true is false if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent12: if there is something such that it is a Melospiza that the moonflower is a kind of a confessional and it is synonymous does not hold. sent13: if something is not a Tien-pao then the fact that it is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is wrong. sent14: if something is not synonymous the fact that the craw is a kind of an enforcer but it does not urinate Cepheus does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Tien-pao and it does not urinate Cepheus then it is non-synonymous. sent16: the fact that the craw is a eightpence hold. sent17: the craw is a Melospiza.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{DT}{fr} & {E}{fr}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent7: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent9: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent12: (x): {E}x -> ¬({F}{ca} & {D}{ca}) sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{DA}x & ¬{B}x) sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent16: {IU}{a} sent17: {E}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the moonflower is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is false.

¬(¬{DA}{ca} & ¬{B}{ca})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the craw is not synonymous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and it is not an enforcer is not correct if there exists something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent2: something is a Tien-pao. sent3: the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer does not hold. sent4: the fact that the brew is a kind of non-parietal thing that is a Melospiza does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao then the fact that the craw does urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is false. sent6: something is not a Tien-pao. sent7: the craw is synonymous if the fact that it does not urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is not correct. sent8: something is not synonymous if that it is a kind of a confessional that is synonymous is not right. sent9: something is not a Tien-pao if the fact that it is a kind of a Tien-pao that is not an enforcer does not hold. sent10: the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is not correct. sent11: the fact that that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is an enforcer is true is false if there is something such that it is not a Tien-pao. sent12: if there is something such that it is a Melospiza that the moonflower is a kind of a confessional and it is synonymous does not hold. sent13: if something is not a Tien-pao then the fact that it is not a kind of a Leuciscus and it does not urinate Cepheus is wrong. sent14: if something is not synonymous the fact that the craw is a kind of an enforcer but it does not urinate Cepheus does not hold. sent15: if something is not a kind of a Tien-pao and it does not urinate Cepheus then it is non-synonymous. sent16: the fact that the craw is a eightpence hold. sent17: the craw is a Melospiza. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: that the fact that the craw does not urinate Cepheus and is not a kind of an enforcer is not incorrect is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not a Tien-pao.

Something isn't a Tien-Pao.

the craw is synonymous if the fact that it does not urinate Cepheus and is not an enforcer is not correct.

the administrativeness does not occur.

sent1: the fact that not the attacking despite but the oystering occurs does not hold. sent2: the non-chondriticness is triggered by that the drowning kilometer does not occur but the urinating Anouilh occurs. sent3: the chondriticness happens if the adoptableness happens. sent4: the fact that the adoptableness happens if the fact that the attacking despite does not occur but the oystering happens is wrong is not incorrect. sent5: if the oyster does not occur then the adoptableness occurs. sent6: the fact that the administrativeness happens but the adoptableness does not occur is false if the chondriticness does not occur. sent7: if the chondriticness occurs then that the administrativeness happens is not false.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the administrativeness does not occur.

¬{C}