Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the spoiling does not occur and the thunderbolt does not occur.

sent1: the casework does not occur if the acrogenicness happens. sent2: if the fact that the mantle does not occur is not wrong then the unholiness happens. sent3: the concluding happens if the expiation does not occur. sent4: if the urinating crinkleroot does not occur and the Sabine does not occur the mantling does not occur. sent5: the urinating crinkleroot does not occur and the Sabineness does not occur. sent6: the urinating dideoxycytosine does not occur if the fact that the endorsing happens is true. sent7: the unholiness results in that the spoiling does not occur and the thunderbolt does not occur. sent8: that the tractiveness happens causes that the substantive does not occur.

(¬{C} & ¬{D})

sent1: {GM} -> ¬{DK} sent2: ¬{B} -> {A} sent3: ¬{HH} -> {IE} sent4: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AD} -> ¬{GO} sent7: {A} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent8: {HE} -> ¬{AC}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the spoiling does not occur and the thunderbolt does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the casework does not occur if the acrogenicness happens. sent2: if the fact that the mantle does not occur is not wrong then the unholiness happens. sent3: the concluding happens if the expiation does not occur. sent4: if the urinating crinkleroot does not occur and the Sabine does not occur the mantling does not occur. sent5: the urinating crinkleroot does not occur and the Sabineness does not occur. sent6: the urinating dideoxycytosine does not occur if the fact that the endorsing happens is true. sent7: the unholiness results in that the spoiling does not occur and the thunderbolt does not occur. sent8: that the tractiveness happens causes that the substantive does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the mantle does not occur.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the unholiness occurs.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the urinating crinkleroot does not occur and the Sabine does not occur the mantling does not occur.

If the urinating crinkle root doesn't happen and the mantling doesn't happen.

the unholiness results in that the spoiling does not occur and the thunderbolt does not occur.

that the aldehyde is both a flamboyant and not a thromboplastin is not right.

sent1: the fact that something is a Diaspididae but it is not a kind of a flamboyant does not hold if it is a thromboplastin. sent2: that the aldehyde is a kind of a flamboyant that is a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent3: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh then the fact that it is a flamboyant and a thromboplastin does not hold. sent4: if something is vitiliginous that it does urinate Vanbrugh hold. sent5: that the Wyomingite is not a Diaspididae hold if there exists something such that that it urinates Vanbrugh and does drown Tara is correct. sent6: that the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae is not false. sent7: there is nothing such that it is both a Meniscium and not vagile. sent8: the fact that the aldehyde is a Diaspididae and a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent9: the Wyomingite does urinate Vanbrugh. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity is not true the venison does drown Tara. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a S. sent12: the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin if the Wyomingite is not a kind of a Diaspididae. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a flamboyant and it is a kind of a thromboplastin does not hold if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a S then that the oyabun does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity does not hold. sent15: that the fact that something is a flamboyant that is not a thromboplastin is true is false if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent16: the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the aldehyde is both a flamboyant and not a thromboplastin is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a Diaspididae but it is not a kind of a flamboyant does not hold if it is a thromboplastin. sent2: that the aldehyde is a kind of a flamboyant that is a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent3: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh then the fact that it is a flamboyant and a thromboplastin does not hold. sent4: if something is vitiliginous that it does urinate Vanbrugh hold. sent5: that the Wyomingite is not a Diaspididae hold if there exists something such that that it urinates Vanbrugh and does drown Tara is correct. sent6: that the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae is not false. sent7: there is nothing such that it is both a Meniscium and not vagile. sent8: the fact that the aldehyde is a Diaspididae and a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent9: the Wyomingite does urinate Vanbrugh. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity is not true the venison does drown Tara. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a S. sent12: the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin if the Wyomingite is not a kind of a Diaspididae. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a flamboyant and it is a kind of a thromboplastin does not hold if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a S then that the oyabun does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity does not hold. sent15: that the fact that something is a flamboyant that is not a thromboplastin is true is false if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent16: the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh is not wrong.; sent15 -> int2: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh the fact that it is a kind of a flamboyant and is not a thromboplastin is false.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae.

If the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae, the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh.

that the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae is not false.

that the aldehyde is both a flamboyant and not a thromboplastin is not right.

sent1: the fact that something is a Diaspididae but it is not a kind of a flamboyant does not hold if it is a thromboplastin. sent2: that the aldehyde is a kind of a flamboyant that is a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent3: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh then the fact that it is a flamboyant and a thromboplastin does not hold. sent4: if something is vitiliginous that it does urinate Vanbrugh hold. sent5: that the Wyomingite is not a Diaspididae hold if there exists something such that that it urinates Vanbrugh and does drown Tara is correct. sent6: that the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae is not false. sent7: there is nothing such that it is both a Meniscium and not vagile. sent8: the fact that the aldehyde is a Diaspididae and a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent9: the Wyomingite does urinate Vanbrugh. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity is not true the venison does drown Tara. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a S. sent12: the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin if the Wyomingite is not a kind of a Diaspididae. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a flamboyant and it is a kind of a thromboplastin does not hold if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a S then that the oyabun does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity does not hold. sent15: that the fact that something is a flamboyant that is not a thromboplastin is true is false if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent16: the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the aldehyde is both a flamboyant and not a thromboplastin is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a Diaspididae but it is not a kind of a flamboyant does not hold if it is a thromboplastin. sent2: that the aldehyde is a kind of a flamboyant that is a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent3: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh then the fact that it is a flamboyant and a thromboplastin does not hold. sent4: if something is vitiliginous that it does urinate Vanbrugh hold. sent5: that the Wyomingite is not a Diaspididae hold if there exists something such that that it urinates Vanbrugh and does drown Tara is correct. sent6: that the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae is not false. sent7: there is nothing such that it is both a Meniscium and not vagile. sent8: the fact that the aldehyde is a Diaspididae and a thromboplastin is incorrect. sent9: the Wyomingite does urinate Vanbrugh. sent10: if there is something such that that it does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity is not true the venison does drown Tara. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a S. sent12: the aldehyde is a flamboyant but it is not a kind of a thromboplastin if the Wyomingite is not a kind of a Diaspididae. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a flamboyant and it is a kind of a thromboplastin does not hold if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent14: if there is something such that it is not a S then that the oyabun does not drown Tara and does not drown prosperity does not hold. sent15: that the fact that something is a flamboyant that is not a thromboplastin is true is false if it does urinate Vanbrugh. sent16: the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh is not wrong.; sent15 -> int2: if the aldehyde does urinate Vanbrugh the fact that it is a kind of a flamboyant and is not a thromboplastin is false.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh if the Wyomingite is a Diaspididae.

If the Wyomingite is a diaspididae, the aldehyde urinates Vanbrugh.

that the fact that something is a flamboyant that is not a thromboplastin is true is false if it does urinate Vanbrugh.

the work-shirt leers compunction.

sent1: if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong. sent2: That the statistic does not attack cornea is not wrong. sent3: something does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent4: the work-shirt does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent5: the interreflection is not a glibness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a symbolist and it does not attack spoiled does not hold it is not a Echinocereus. sent7: the work-shirt does not attack statistic. sent8: if the fact that something is not a havelock and not a glibness is not correct then it does not leer compunction. sent9: the fact that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is incorrect if the fact that the work-shirt is not a glibness is right. sent10: that the cornea does not attack statistic is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock but it is a kind of a glibness does not hold. sent12: that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and does not attack Macrocephalon does not hold. sent14: the cornea is not a havelock. sent15: that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock but it is a glibness is false if the cornea does not attack statistic. sent16: the fact that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and does not attack statistic is not right if the cornea does not leer compunction.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: {AB}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{dq} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{CB}x) -> ¬{J}x sent7: ¬{A}{b} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent12: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AP}{b}) sent14: ¬{AA}{a} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent16: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the work-shirt leers compunction. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong. sent2: That the statistic does not attack cornea is not wrong. sent3: something does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent4: the work-shirt does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent5: the interreflection is not a glibness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a symbolist and it does not attack spoiled does not hold it is not a Echinocereus. sent7: the work-shirt does not attack statistic. sent8: if the fact that something is not a havelock and not a glibness is not correct then it does not leer compunction. sent9: the fact that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is incorrect if the fact that the work-shirt is not a glibness is right. sent10: that the cornea does not attack statistic is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock but it is a kind of a glibness does not hold. sent12: that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and does not attack Macrocephalon does not hold. sent14: the cornea is not a havelock. sent15: that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock but it is a glibness is false if the cornea does not attack statistic. sent16: the fact that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and does not attack statistic is not right if the cornea does not leer compunction. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong.; sent8 -> int2: if that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and is not a glibness does not hold it does not leer compunction.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong.

The work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness.

that the cornea does not attack statistic is not wrong.

the work-shirt leers compunction.

sent1: if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong. sent2: That the statistic does not attack cornea is not wrong. sent3: something does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent4: the work-shirt does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent5: the interreflection is not a glibness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a symbolist and it does not attack spoiled does not hold it is not a Echinocereus. sent7: the work-shirt does not attack statistic. sent8: if the fact that something is not a havelock and not a glibness is not correct then it does not leer compunction. sent9: the fact that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is incorrect if the fact that the work-shirt is not a glibness is right. sent10: that the cornea does not attack statistic is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock but it is a kind of a glibness does not hold. sent12: that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and does not attack Macrocephalon does not hold. sent14: the cornea is not a havelock. sent15: that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock but it is a glibness is false if the cornea does not attack statistic. sent16: the fact that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and does not attack statistic is not right if the cornea does not leer compunction.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: {AB}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{dq} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{CB}x) -> ¬{J}x sent7: ¬{A}{b} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent12: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AP}{b}) sent14: ¬{AA}{a} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent16: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the work-shirt leers compunction. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong. sent2: That the statistic does not attack cornea is not wrong. sent3: something does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent4: the work-shirt does not leer compunction if it is a glibness. sent5: the interreflection is not a glibness. sent6: if the fact that something is not a symbolist and it does not attack spoiled does not hold it is not a Echinocereus. sent7: the work-shirt does not attack statistic. sent8: if the fact that something is not a havelock and not a glibness is not correct then it does not leer compunction. sent9: the fact that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is incorrect if the fact that the work-shirt is not a glibness is right. sent10: that the cornea does not attack statistic is not wrong. sent11: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock but it is a kind of a glibness does not hold. sent12: that the cornea does not leer compunction and it does not attack statistic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and does not attack Macrocephalon does not hold. sent14: the cornea is not a havelock. sent15: that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock but it is a glibness is false if the cornea does not attack statistic. sent16: the fact that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and does not attack statistic is not right if the cornea does not leer compunction. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong.; sent8 -> int2: if that the work-shirt is not a kind of a havelock and is not a glibness does not hold it does not leer compunction.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cornea does not attack statistic that the work-shirt is not a havelock and it is not a glibness is wrong.

The work-shirt is not a havelock and is not a glibness.

if the fact that something is not a havelock and not a glibness is not correct then it does not leer compunction.

both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs.

sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens.

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Lutheranness occurs and the expecting occurs is not true.

¬({B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the Lutheran happens.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the expecting happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur.

The Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness doesn't happen.

the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs.

both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs.

sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens.

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Lutheranness occurs and the expecting occurs is not true.

¬({B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the Lutheran happens.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the expecting happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur.

If the commodiousness doesn't happen, the Lutheranness will happen.

that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs.

both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs.

sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens.

({B} & {A})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the Lutheranness occurs and the expecting occurs is not true.

¬({B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the Lutheran and the expecting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the emptyingness occurs but the heroine does not occur is false the emptyingness does not occur. sent2: if the imprudentness but not the sweetness happens then the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold. sent3: that the expecting does not occur is prevented by that the emmetropicness occurs. sent4: if the mnemonics does not occur the imprudentness and the non-sweetness happens. sent5: the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold. sent6: the commodiousness but not the mischief occurs. sent7: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur hold then the fact that the Lutheran and the expecting happens does not hold. sent8: if the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur then the heterotrophicness happens. sent9: both the drowning primer and the hesitation happens if the emptying does not occur. sent10: the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur. sent11: that the conciliatoriness does not occur and the urinating Honiara does not occur is brought about by that the hesitation occurs. sent12: that not the mnemonicsness but the diffraction happens is brought about by that the heterotrophicness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the Lutheran happens.; sent3 & sent5 -> int2: the expecting happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness happens and the mischief does not occur.

The Lutheranness happens if the commodiousness is not present.

the fact that the emmetropicness happens hold.

the liberator is fistulous.

sent1: that the dissociation attacks Judea is not wrong. sent2: the four either does attack Judea or is ropy or both. sent3: the liberator is not fistulous if something corners or it attacks Judea or both. sent4: the fact that the dissociation does not attack Judea and is not a Cercospora is not true if the liberator is not a corner. sent5: That the Judea attacks dissociation is not wrong. sent6: the dumps is not a corner. sent7: something is a kind of a Cercospora if that it does not attack Judea and it is not a Cercospora is not right.

{C}{b}

sent1: {B}{a} sent2: ({B}{er} v {DH}{er}) sent3: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{BN}{a}) sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: ¬{A}{c} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {BN}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

something is either Belgian or a Cercospora or both.

(Ex): ({GR}x v {BN}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the liberator is fistulous. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dissociation attacks Judea is not wrong. sent2: the four either does attack Judea or is ropy or both. sent3: the liberator is not fistulous if something corners or it attacks Judea or both. sent4: the fact that the dissociation does not attack Judea and is not a Cercospora is not true if the liberator is not a corner. sent5: That the Judea attacks dissociation is not wrong. sent6: the dumps is not a corner. sent7: something is a kind of a Cercospora if that it does not attack Judea and it is not a Cercospora is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the dissociation is a corner or it attacks Judea or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it either corners or does attack Judea or both.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the dissociation attacks Judea is not wrong.

that the dissociation attacks Judea is not wrong.

the liberator is not fistulous if something corners or it attacks Judea or both.

the clinging does not occur.

sent1: if the urinating athenaeum does not occur the fact that the unrecoverableness and the purposelessness occurs does not hold. sent2: if that the drowning flair does not occur but the urinating athenaeum happens is not correct the urinating athenaeum does not occur. sent3: if the derangement happens the unexchangeableness happens. sent4: that the abbreviation does not occur causes the diabaticness. sent5: the diabaticness happens. sent6: the uplink happens and the breeziness does not occur if the diabaticness does not occur. sent7: the abounding happens if the attacking inquisition happens. sent8: the capitalisticness does not occur and the urinating floccule does not occur if the fact that the abounding happens hold. sent9: the clinging occurs if the uplink but not the breeziness occurs. sent10: both the summer and the urinating Dubai occurs. sent11: both the broadbandness and the clinging occurs if the breeziness does not occur. sent12: that the breeziness does not occur is caused by that the diabaticness does not occur but the uplink happens. sent13: the diabaticness and the uplink occurs if the abbreviation does not occur. sent14: if the cling occurs and the breeziness happens the uplink does not occur. sent15: that the muster does not occur hold if the fact that the unrecoverableness happens and the purposelessness occurs is not correct. sent16: if the bogging happens then that not the drowning flair but the urinating athenaeum happens is incorrect. sent17: if the muster does not occur then the hiplessness occurs and the attacking inquisition happens. sent18: the breeziness occurs. sent19: the derangement occurs and the fluoridation happens if that the capitalisticness does not occur is not false. sent20: the diabaticness does not occur and the abbreviation does not occur if the unexchangeableness occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & {O}) sent2: ¬(¬{R} & {Q}) -> ¬{Q} sent3: {G} -> {F} sent4: ¬{E} -> {D} sent5: {D} sent6: ¬{D} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent7: {L} -> {K} sent8: {K} -> (¬{I} & ¬{J}) sent9: ({C} & ¬{B}) -> {A} sent10: ({FM} & {AE}) sent11: ¬{B} -> ({EH} & {A}) sent12: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent13: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent15: ¬({P} & {O}) -> ¬{N} sent16: {S} -> ¬(¬{R} & {Q}) sent17: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent18: {B} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent20: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the broadbandness occurs.

{EH}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the clinging does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the urinating athenaeum does not occur the fact that the unrecoverableness and the purposelessness occurs does not hold. sent2: if that the drowning flair does not occur but the urinating athenaeum happens is not correct the urinating athenaeum does not occur. sent3: if the derangement happens the unexchangeableness happens. sent4: that the abbreviation does not occur causes the diabaticness. sent5: the diabaticness happens. sent6: the uplink happens and the breeziness does not occur if the diabaticness does not occur. sent7: the abounding happens if the attacking inquisition happens. sent8: the capitalisticness does not occur and the urinating floccule does not occur if the fact that the abounding happens hold. sent9: the clinging occurs if the uplink but not the breeziness occurs. sent10: both the summer and the urinating Dubai occurs. sent11: both the broadbandness and the clinging occurs if the breeziness does not occur. sent12: that the breeziness does not occur is caused by that the diabaticness does not occur but the uplink happens. sent13: the diabaticness and the uplink occurs if the abbreviation does not occur. sent14: if the cling occurs and the breeziness happens the uplink does not occur. sent15: that the muster does not occur hold if the fact that the unrecoverableness happens and the purposelessness occurs is not correct. sent16: if the bogging happens then that not the drowning flair but the urinating athenaeum happens is incorrect. sent17: if the muster does not occur then the hiplessness occurs and the attacking inquisition happens. sent18: the breeziness occurs. sent19: the derangement occurs and the fluoridation happens if that the capitalisticness does not occur is not false. sent20: the diabaticness does not occur and the abbreviation does not occur if the unexchangeableness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the breeziness occurs.

the breeziness occurs.

if the cling occurs and the breeziness happens the uplink does not occur.

something is a subnormality and it does attack lexeme.

sent1: if that something is not a centennial and/or it is a uninitiate is wrong then it is not a kind of a athanor. sent2: the fact that something is not a centennial and/or it is a uninitiate is false if it does not attack incitation. sent3: the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid if the switch-ivy is a arctiid. sent4: the contadino is a allopathy. sent5: if the propanal is a arctiid then the contadino is a arctiid. sent6: that the oscillation is not syntactic is true if the contadino is a arctiid and it is a allopathy. sent7: if something is not syntactic that it attacks propanal and does attack incitation is false. sent8: the ovule does attack lexeme. sent9: there exists something such that it attacks lexeme. sent10: the filth does attack lexeme if the gland is not a athanor and/or it is not a kind of a subnormality. sent11: there exists something such that it is a subnormality. sent12: the switch-ivy is a kind of a arctiid and/or it is crosswise if there is something such that it is not a journalese. sent13: the fact that the toboggan is acaudate but it is not involuntary is incorrect. sent14: if the switch-ivy is crosswise the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid. sent15: the toboggan is not a kind of a journalese if that it is acaudate thing that is not involuntary is incorrect. sent16: The lexeme attacks gland. sent17: the gland attacks lexeme. sent18: the propanal is a arctiid if the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid.

(Ex): ({A}x & {B}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the filth does attack lexeme.

{B}{cp}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is a subnormality and it does attack lexeme. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a centennial and/or it is a uninitiate is wrong then it is not a kind of a athanor. sent2: the fact that something is not a centennial and/or it is a uninitiate is false if it does not attack incitation. sent3: the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid if the switch-ivy is a arctiid. sent4: the contadino is a allopathy. sent5: if the propanal is a arctiid then the contadino is a arctiid. sent6: that the oscillation is not syntactic is true if the contadino is a arctiid and it is a allopathy. sent7: if something is not syntactic that it attacks propanal and does attack incitation is false. sent8: the ovule does attack lexeme. sent9: there exists something such that it attacks lexeme. sent10: the filth does attack lexeme if the gland is not a athanor and/or it is not a kind of a subnormality. sent11: there exists something such that it is a subnormality. sent12: the switch-ivy is a kind of a arctiid and/or it is crosswise if there is something such that it is not a journalese. sent13: the fact that the toboggan is acaudate but it is not involuntary is incorrect. sent14: if the switch-ivy is crosswise the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid. sent15: the toboggan is not a kind of a journalese if that it is acaudate thing that is not involuntary is incorrect. sent16: The lexeme attacks gland. sent17: the gland attacks lexeme. sent18: the propanal is a arctiid if the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it attacks lexeme.

there exists something such that it attacks lexeme.

if the switch-ivy is crosswise the dynamo is a kind of a arctiid.

the PIN occurs.

sent1: the acidimetry happens if the sledding happens. sent2: if the labial occurs that the acidimetry happens is not wrong. sent3: the sledding or the labial or both happens.

{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the PIN occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the acidimetry happens if the sledding happens. sent2: if the labial occurs that the acidimetry happens is not wrong. sent3: the sledding or the labial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sledding or the labial or both happens.

The sledding or the labial happens.

the acidimetry happens if the sledding happens.

the PIN occurs.

sent1: the acidimetry happens if the sledding happens. sent2: if the labial occurs that the acidimetry happens is not wrong. sent3: the sledding or the labial or both happens.

{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the PIN occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the acidimetry happens if the sledding happens. sent2: if the labial occurs that the acidimetry happens is not wrong. sent3: the sledding or the labial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sledding or the labial or both happens.

Either the sledding or the labial happens.

if the labial occurs that the acidimetry happens is not wrong.

the lettuce is conformist.

sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism.

{B}{aa}

sent1: {A}{aa} -> {DS}{aa} sent2: ¬{C}{fm} sent3: (¬{DU}{cj} & ¬{EK}{cj}) -> ¬{I}{cj} sent4: {AB}{aj} sent5: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬({EJ}x & ¬{EG}x) -> {GK}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ({C}{aa} & ¬{DB}{aa}) -> ¬{BM}{aa} sent9: {AB}{aa} -> {DU}{aa} sent10: {C}{dj} sent11: (¬{FJ}{aa} & ¬{HK}{aa}) sent12: (¬{G}{dt} & ¬{AA}{dt}) -> ¬{IE}{dt} sent13: ¬{C}{in} sent14: (¬{CB}{aa} & ¬{HH}{aa}) sent15: (¬{FL}{aa} & ¬{BS}{aa}) sent16: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) sent17: ({C}{em} & ¬{IB}{em}) -> ¬{EP}{em} sent18: ¬({FN}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent20: (¬{HO}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{AM}{aa} sent21: ¬({DR}{ad} & {D}{ad}) sent22: (x): ¬({DH}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {DG}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lettuce is conformist. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the lettuce is not a penicillinase then the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella does not hold.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the lettuce is not a penicillinase.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the fact that the lettuce is glomerular and not a helvella is correct does not hold.; sent19 -> int4: the lettuce is a kind of a conformist if the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella is not correct.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold.

The fact that something is not a kind of a hevellal is incorrect if it is not a penicillinase hold.

that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false.

the lettuce is conformist.

sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism.

{B}{aa}

sent1: {A}{aa} -> {DS}{aa} sent2: ¬{C}{fm} sent3: (¬{DU}{cj} & ¬{EK}{cj}) -> ¬{I}{cj} sent4: {AB}{aj} sent5: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬({EJ}x & ¬{EG}x) -> {GK}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ({C}{aa} & ¬{DB}{aa}) -> ¬{BM}{aa} sent9: {AB}{aa} -> {DU}{aa} sent10: {C}{dj} sent11: (¬{FJ}{aa} & ¬{HK}{aa}) sent12: (¬{G}{dt} & ¬{AA}{dt}) -> ¬{IE}{dt} sent13: ¬{C}{in} sent14: (¬{CB}{aa} & ¬{HH}{aa}) sent15: (¬{FL}{aa} & ¬{BS}{aa}) sent16: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) sent17: ({C}{em} & ¬{IB}{em}) -> ¬{EP}{em} sent18: ¬({FN}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent20: (¬{HO}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{AM}{aa} sent21: ¬({DR}{ad} & {D}{ad}) sent22: (x): ¬({DH}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {DG}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lettuce is conformist. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the lettuce is not a penicillinase then the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella does not hold.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the lettuce is not a penicillinase.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the fact that the lettuce is glomerular and not a helvella is correct does not hold.; sent19 -> int4: the lettuce is a kind of a conformist if the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella is not correct.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold.

It is incorrect to say that something is not a kind of a hevellal if it is not a penicillinase hold.

the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton.

the lettuce is conformist.

sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism.

{B}{aa}

sent1: {A}{aa} -> {DS}{aa} sent2: ¬{C}{fm} sent3: (¬{DU}{cj} & ¬{EK}{cj}) -> ¬{I}{cj} sent4: {AB}{aj} sent5: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬({EJ}x & ¬{EG}x) -> {GK}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ({C}{aa} & ¬{DB}{aa}) -> ¬{BM}{aa} sent9: {AB}{aa} -> {DU}{aa} sent10: {C}{dj} sent11: (¬{FJ}{aa} & ¬{HK}{aa}) sent12: (¬{G}{dt} & ¬{AA}{dt}) -> ¬{IE}{dt} sent13: ¬{C}{in} sent14: (¬{CB}{aa} & ¬{HH}{aa}) sent15: (¬{FL}{aa} & ¬{BS}{aa}) sent16: (¬{C}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) sent17: ({C}{em} & ¬{IB}{em}) -> ¬{EP}{em} sent18: ¬({FN}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent20: (¬{HO}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{AM}{aa} sent21: ¬({DR}{ad} & {D}{ad}) sent22: (x): ¬({DH}x & ¬{BN}x) -> {DG}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lettuce is conformist. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the lettuce is a kind of a pronoun is not incorrect if it is a penicillinase. sent2: the alto is not a caricaturist. sent3: the fact that the critic does not urinate hydroxide if the critic is not a kind of a aalii and it is not appetitive hold. sent4: that the pheniramine is a helvella hold. sent5: that the lettuce is not a kind of a penicillinase is not incorrect if that it is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton is not false. sent6: if the fact that something is a kind of abiogenetic thing that does not simplify is not true it does grab. sent7: the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold. sent8: the lettuce is not septic if it is a kind of a caricaturist and is not a kind of a spread. sent9: the fact that if the lettuce is a kind of the helvella the lettuce is a kind of a aalii is right. sent10: the trustbuster is a caricaturist. sent11: the lettuce is not a kind of a turbinate and it is not a rotary. sent12: the cat does not leer overproduction if it is non-Irish thing that is not glomerular. sent13: the barnburner is not a kind of a caricaturist. sent14: the lettuce does not urinate cordon and it does not urinate creeper. sent15: the lettuce is not a lay and not a AMP. sent16: the lettuce is not a caricaturist and does not leer Lawton. sent17: if the teller is a caricaturist and does not hypothecate then it is not hopeful. sent18: the fact that the lettuce urinates exigency and it is a helvella is false. sent19: if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right. sent20: the lettuce is not eschatological if it is not a eaglet and is not a penicillinase. sent21: the fact that the fellatio is amethystine and leers Lawton is not correct. sent22: if the fact that something is a footfall and not a lubrication is wrong it is a kind of a separatism. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: if the lettuce is not a penicillinase then the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella does not hold.; sent5 & sent16 -> int2: the lettuce is not a penicillinase.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the fact that the lettuce is glomerular and not a helvella is correct does not hold.; sent19 -> int4: the lettuce is a kind of a conformist if the fact that it is glomerular and it is not a helvella is not correct.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is glomerular and is not a kind of a helvella is incorrect if that it is not a kind of a penicillinase hold.

The fact that something is not a hevellal is incorrect if it is not a penicillinase hold.

if that something is not non-glomerular but it is not a helvella does not hold then the fact that it is a conformist is right.

the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both.

sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false.

({A}{a} v {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the porte-cochere is not a stray.

¬{C}{cu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano then that it is not a Crotalidae hold.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the schist is not a Crotalidae hold.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold.

The thing that urinates boliviano is not a kind of Crotalidae hold.

if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano.

the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both.

sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false.

({A}{a} v {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the porte-cochere is not a stray.

¬{C}{cu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano then that it is not a Crotalidae hold.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the schist is not a Crotalidae hold.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold.

The thing that urinates boliviano is not a Crotalidae hold.

the schist does not stray.

the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both.

sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false.

({A}{a} v {B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the porte-cochere is not a stray.

¬{C}{cu}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the goliard does not urinate boliviano then the schist is a kind of a Crotalidae or it does urinate boliviano or both. sent2: that the blender does not unfasten and it is not a kind of an abrogation does not hold if it is a kind of a confirmation. sent3: that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae. sent4: the blender is a confirmation that is exilic. sent5: if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold. sent6: the schist does not stray. sent7: if that something is a endonuclease is right then the fact that it is not a protology but a Crotalidae is not correct. sent8: if the schist does not erupt then it does urinate boliviano. sent9: if the schist does not stray it is homozygous and it urinates boliviano. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of an oratory but it is a kind of a stray is not true if it is not a Crotalidae. sent11: if that something does not unfasten and it is not an abrogation is not right it is a kind of a endonuclease. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not an oratory and it is a kind of a stray is incorrect then the porte-cochere is not a stray. sent13: the goliard is not a Crotalidae if there exists something such that that it is not a protology and it is a kind of a Crotalidae is false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano then that it is not a Crotalidae hold.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the schist is homozygous and urinates boliviano.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the schist is not a Crotalidae hold.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if a homozygous thing urinates boliviano that it is not a kind of a Crotalidae hold.

It is not a kind of Crotalidae hold if a thing urinates on boliviano.

that the goliard is an oratory or it is a Crotalidae or both is correct if the schist is not a kind of a Crotalidae.

that the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it does not leer Sapporo or both is not true.

sent1: if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent. sent2: something is not existent and/or it sunders if it is inaccessible. sent3: something is inaccessible if it is a kind of a Sinitic. sent4: if the fairy is dysphemistic it is not existent. sent5: the fairy is dysphemistic. sent6: something that does not harden is Sinitic and is not a kind of a heuristic. sent7: the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it leers Sapporo or both. sent8: the stuffer is not dysphemistic if it is not existent and/or does sunder. sent9: the fact that that something is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo is not false does not hold if it is not dysphemistic.

¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or does not leer Sapporo does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it does not leer Sapporo or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent. sent2: something is not existent and/or it sunders if it is inaccessible. sent3: something is inaccessible if it is a kind of a Sinitic. sent4: if the fairy is dysphemistic it is not existent. sent5: the fairy is dysphemistic. sent6: something that does not harden is Sinitic and is not a kind of a heuristic. sent7: the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it leers Sapporo or both. sent8: the stuffer is not dysphemistic if it is not existent and/or does sunder. sent9: the fact that that something is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo is not false does not hold if it is not dysphemistic. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fairy is existent.; sent4 & sent5 -> int2: the fairy is not existent.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent.

The fairy is notexistent if the stuffer is not familiar and Sapporo does not hold it.

if the fairy is dysphemistic it is not existent.

that the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it does not leer Sapporo or both is not true.

sent1: if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent. sent2: something is not existent and/or it sunders if it is inaccessible. sent3: something is inaccessible if it is a kind of a Sinitic. sent4: if the fairy is dysphemistic it is not existent. sent5: the fairy is dysphemistic. sent6: something that does not harden is Sinitic and is not a kind of a heuristic. sent7: the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it leers Sapporo or both. sent8: the stuffer is not dysphemistic if it is not existent and/or does sunder. sent9: the fact that that something is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo is not false does not hold if it is not dysphemistic.

¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or does not leer Sapporo does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it does not leer Sapporo or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent. sent2: something is not existent and/or it sunders if it is inaccessible. sent3: something is inaccessible if it is a kind of a Sinitic. sent4: if the fairy is dysphemistic it is not existent. sent5: the fairy is dysphemistic. sent6: something that does not harden is Sinitic and is not a kind of a heuristic. sent7: the stuffer is not unfamiliar or it leers Sapporo or both. sent8: the stuffer is not dysphemistic if it is not existent and/or does sunder. sent9: the fact that that something is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo is not false does not hold if it is not dysphemistic. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fairy is existent.; sent4 & sent5 -> int2: the fairy is not existent.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the stuffer is not unfamiliar and/or it does not leer Sapporo does not hold then the fairy is existent.

The fairy is notexistent if the stuffer is not familiar and the Sapporo does not hold it.

the fairy is dysphemistic.

the soda is not a kind of a Timorese.

sent1: the detractor is not a pant. sent2: everything does drown haggler and is not anterograde. sent3: the soda is not a Timorese if it is not a Sudanese. sent4: the detractor is a kind of non-promissory thing that does not leer squinched. sent5: something is Timorese if it is a Sudanese. sent6: if something that does drown haggler is not anterograde it is not a Anjou. sent7: the detractor is not a pant and not a light.

¬{A}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the soda is Timorese.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the soda is not a kind of a Timorese. ; $context$ = sent1: the detractor is not a pant. sent2: everything does drown haggler and is not anterograde. sent3: the soda is not a Timorese if it is not a Sudanese. sent4: the detractor is a kind of non-promissory thing that does not leer squinched. sent5: something is Timorese if it is a Sudanese. sent6: if something that does drown haggler is not anterograde it is not a Anjou. sent7: the detractor is not a pant and not a light. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the soda is not a Timorese if it is not a Sudanese.

the soda is not a Timorese if it is not a Sudanese.

the detractor is a kind of non-promissory thing that does not leer squinched.

the proprioceptor is a kind of a Vietnamese.

sent1: the sorghum does not attack aphorism. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism. sent3: the fact that the proprioceptor is menstrual and is not fungal does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the proprioceptor is a kind of gutless thing that is not capitalistic is not true then it is not a Vietnamese. sent5: if that the proprioceptor is Vietnamese but it is not a kind of a jaguar is not correct then it does not drown horsefly. sent6: that the proprioceptor does perorate but it is not a Vietnamese is wrong. sent7: the cofactor is not orthodontic if it does not taper. sent8: the fact that if the fact that the fact that the proprioceptor is a Vietnamese that is not the capriccio does not hold is right the proprioceptor is not a clang hold. sent9: the horsefly does not revolt if it is not fungal. sent10: that the californium attacks aphorism and does not attack cervix does not hold. sent11: something is not Vietnamese if the fact that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism is wrong. sent12: that the proprioceptor is a Pomatomus but not subtropical is not true. sent13: that there exists nothing such that it is a wrist and it is not a kind of a prefab is not wrong. sent14: the fact that the proprioceptor attacks aphorism but it does not attack Latrodectus does not hold. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is planetary and it does not attack Calder. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is young thing that is not a rinse. sent17: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a Carmelite and it is not indelicate. sent18: the sociopath is not fungal. sent19: the proprioceptor is not ventricular if it is not nonradioactive.

{A}{aa}

sent1: ¬{AB}{aq} sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬({HT}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent4: ¬({GN}{aa} & ¬{IG}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{DO}{aa}) -> ¬{HM}{aa} sent6: ¬({GO}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent7: ¬{IF}{ai} -> ¬{CO}{ai} sent8: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{CA}{aa}) -> ¬{HC}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{fp} -> ¬{CT}{fp} sent10: ¬({AB}{c} & ¬{HD}{c}) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: ¬({H}{aa} & ¬{EB}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬({GT}x & ¬{GC}x) sent14: ¬({AB}{aa} & ¬{G}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬({IQ}x & ¬{DD}x) sent16: (x): ¬({GK}x & ¬{JF}x) sent17: (x): ¬({S}x & ¬{FL}x) sent18: ¬{AA}{ej} sent19: ¬{DP}{aa} -> ¬{FG}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the proprioceptor is a kind of a Vietnamese. ; $context$ = sent1: the sorghum does not attack aphorism. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism. sent3: the fact that the proprioceptor is menstrual and is not fungal does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the proprioceptor is a kind of gutless thing that is not capitalistic is not true then it is not a Vietnamese. sent5: if that the proprioceptor is Vietnamese but it is not a kind of a jaguar is not correct then it does not drown horsefly. sent6: that the proprioceptor does perorate but it is not a Vietnamese is wrong. sent7: the cofactor is not orthodontic if it does not taper. sent8: the fact that if the fact that the fact that the proprioceptor is a Vietnamese that is not the capriccio does not hold is right the proprioceptor is not a clang hold. sent9: the horsefly does not revolt if it is not fungal. sent10: that the californium attacks aphorism and does not attack cervix does not hold. sent11: something is not Vietnamese if the fact that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism is wrong. sent12: that the proprioceptor is a Pomatomus but not subtropical is not true. sent13: that there exists nothing such that it is a wrist and it is not a kind of a prefab is not wrong. sent14: the fact that the proprioceptor attacks aphorism but it does not attack Latrodectus does not hold. sent15: there exists nothing such that it is planetary and it does not attack Calder. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is young thing that is not a rinse. sent17: there exists nothing such that it is a kind of a Carmelite and it is not indelicate. sent18: the sociopath is not fungal. sent19: the proprioceptor is not ventricular if it is not nonradioactive. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the proprioceptor is fungal and does not attack aphorism is incorrect.; sent11 -> int2: the proprioceptor is not a Vietnamese if that it is fungal and does not attack aphorism is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism.

there exists nothing such that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism.

something is not Vietnamese if the fact that it is fungal and it does not attack aphorism is wrong.

the methocarbamol is a kind of real-time thing that does disintegrate.

sent1: something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right. sent2: something is real-time if the fact that it does decompose hold. sent3: something drowns canned and it is a homefolk if it is not an evidence. sent4: the methocarbamol does not decompose if something is a kind of a homefolk. sent5: the punchball drowns lipfern and does urinate punchball. sent6: the methocarbamol does disintegrate if it is not a kind of a becomingness. sent7: there is nothing that is a becomingness that is not a honk. sent8: the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if it disintegrates. sent9: if the fact that something is acentric and non-real-time is false it attacks Plantago. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does not decompose and it drowns canned does not hold.

({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}{aa} sent5: ({IM}{as} & {HR}{as}) sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {B}{aa} -> {IA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({DU}x & ¬{A}x) -> {IA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if the fact that it is a kind of acentric thing that is not real-time is incorrect.

¬({DU}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {IA}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methocarbamol is a kind of real-time thing that does disintegrate. ; $context$ = sent1: something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right. sent2: something is real-time if the fact that it does decompose hold. sent3: something drowns canned and it is a homefolk if it is not an evidence. sent4: the methocarbamol does not decompose if something is a kind of a homefolk. sent5: the punchball drowns lipfern and does urinate punchball. sent6: the methocarbamol does disintegrate if it is not a kind of a becomingness. sent7: there is nothing that is a becomingness that is not a honk. sent8: the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if it disintegrates. sent9: if the fact that something is acentric and non-real-time is false it attacks Plantago. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does not decompose and it drowns canned does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right.

If it is a becomingness then it is not right.

there is nothing that is a becomingness that is not a honk.

the methocarbamol is a kind of real-time thing that does disintegrate.

sent1: something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right. sent2: something is real-time if the fact that it does decompose hold. sent3: something drowns canned and it is a homefolk if it is not an evidence. sent4: the methocarbamol does not decompose if something is a kind of a homefolk. sent5: the punchball drowns lipfern and does urinate punchball. sent6: the methocarbamol does disintegrate if it is not a kind of a becomingness. sent7: there is nothing that is a becomingness that is not a honk. sent8: the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if it disintegrates. sent9: if the fact that something is acentric and non-real-time is false it attacks Plantago. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does not decompose and it drowns canned does not hold.

({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}{aa} sent5: ({IM}{as} & {HR}{as}) sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {B}{aa} -> {IA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬({DU}x & ¬{A}x) -> {IA}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{C}x & {E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if the fact that it is a kind of acentric thing that is not real-time is incorrect.

¬({DU}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {IA}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the methocarbamol is a kind of real-time thing that does disintegrate. ; $context$ = sent1: something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right. sent2: something is real-time if the fact that it does decompose hold. sent3: something drowns canned and it is a homefolk if it is not an evidence. sent4: the methocarbamol does not decompose if something is a kind of a homefolk. sent5: the punchball drowns lipfern and does urinate punchball. sent6: the methocarbamol does disintegrate if it is not a kind of a becomingness. sent7: there is nothing that is a becomingness that is not a honk. sent8: the methocarbamol does attack Plantago if it disintegrates. sent9: if the fact that something is acentric and non-real-time is false it attacks Plantago. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does not decompose and it drowns canned does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something disintegrates if that it is a becomingness and it does not honk is not right.

If it is becomingness and it does not stop, it is not right.

something is real-time if the fact that it does decompose hold.

the Shakers is not a first.

sent1: there is nothing that is both a Vetluga and not a failure. sent2: that the Shakers is first but it is not a downstage is false. sent3: if the fact that the fact that something is a Vetluga that is not a failure is not incorrect is not true it is not a kind of a first.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ¬({B}{aa} & ¬{FP}{aa}) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Shakers is not a first. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing that is both a Vetluga and not a failure. sent2: that the Shakers is first but it is not a downstage is false. sent3: if the fact that the fact that something is a Vetluga that is not a failure is not incorrect is not true it is not a kind of a first. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the Shakers is not a kind of a first if that it is a Vetluga and it is not a failure is incorrect.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the Shakers is a kind of a Vetluga and is not a failure is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the fact that something is a Vetluga that is not a failure is not incorrect is not true it is not a kind of a first.

if the fact that the fact that something is a Vetluga that is not a failure is not incorrect is not true it is not a kind of a first.

there is nothing that is both a Vetluga and not a failure.

if the scaling does not occur and the puffing happens the speech does not occur.

sent1: that the speech does not occur is triggered by either the acknowledging or that the batting happens or both. sent2: the cheliferousness does not occur. sent3: the attacking tickle does not occur if the coast happens. sent4: the drowning Phalangium occurs if the dominating and/or the humicness occurs. sent5: the spectroscopicness occurs if not the drowning Congress but the attacking tickle occurs. sent6: the speech happens. sent7: not the drowning Mosaic but the pickings happens. sent8: the drowning Karlfeldt does not occur but the bocce happens. sent9: that the urinating OMB does not occur is triggered by that the omen and/or the call-back occurs. sent10: if the leonineness happens and/or the attacking photophobia happens then the adoption occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{C}

sent1: ({B} v {A}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{GC} sent3: {IU} -> ¬{EJ} sent4: ({EL} v {FN}) -> {AD} sent5: (¬{CP} & {EJ}) -> {CQ} sent6: {C} sent7: (¬{GH} & {AU}) sent8: (¬{DE} & {AS}) sent9: ({BL} v {K}) -> ¬{FS} sent10: ({IQ} v {ID}) -> {CH}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the scaling does not occur and the puffing happens the speech does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the speech does not occur is triggered by either the acknowledging or that the batting happens or both. sent2: the cheliferousness does not occur. sent3: the attacking tickle does not occur if the coast happens. sent4: the drowning Phalangium occurs if the dominating and/or the humicness occurs. sent5: the spectroscopicness occurs if not the drowning Congress but the attacking tickle occurs. sent6: the speech happens. sent7: not the drowning Mosaic but the pickings happens. sent8: the drowning Karlfeldt does not occur but the bocce happens. sent9: that the urinating OMB does not occur is triggered by that the omen and/or the call-back occurs. sent10: if the leonineness happens and/or the attacking photophobia happens then the adoption occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

not the drowning Mosaic but the pickings happens.

not the drowning Mosaic but the pickings happens.

that the urinating OMB does not occur is triggered by that the omen and/or the call-back occurs.

the Kleenex is not a misoneism and it is not a cornsmut.

sent1: something does not drown do-si-do if that it does drown do-si-do and it is not allelic is not correct. sent2: that the fact that something drowns do-si-do but it is not allelic is incorrect if the fact that it is not a osier is true is true. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it drowns Desmodium and it is a osier is not correct. sent4: The candle drowns invader. sent5: the invader does drown do-si-do. sent6: the invader drowns candle. sent7: something does not drown candle or is a cornsmut or both if that it does not drown do-si-do is correct. sent8: the Kleenex is not a kind of a misoneism. sent9: The do-si-do does drown invader. sent10: the nincompoop is not a osier if there exists something such that that it does drown Desmodium and it is a kind of a osier does not hold. sent11: the invader is a cornsmut if either something does not drown candle or it is a cornsmut or both. sent12: if the invader drowns candle and does drown do-si-do the nincompoop is not allelic.

(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Kleenex is not a misoneism and not a cornsmut is not right.

¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Kleenex is not a misoneism and it is not a cornsmut. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not drown do-si-do if that it does drown do-si-do and it is not allelic is not correct. sent2: that the fact that something drowns do-si-do but it is not allelic is incorrect if the fact that it is not a osier is true is true. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it drowns Desmodium and it is a osier is not correct. sent4: The candle drowns invader. sent5: the invader does drown do-si-do. sent6: the invader drowns candle. sent7: something does not drown candle or is a cornsmut or both if that it does not drown do-si-do is correct. sent8: the Kleenex is not a kind of a misoneism. sent9: The do-si-do does drown invader. sent10: the nincompoop is not a osier if there exists something such that that it does drown Desmodium and it is a kind of a osier does not hold. sent11: the invader is a cornsmut if either something does not drown candle or it is a cornsmut or both. sent12: if the invader drowns candle and does drown do-si-do the nincompoop is not allelic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the invader drowns candle.

The invader drowns a candle.

the invader does drown do-si-do.

the Kleenex is not a misoneism and it is not a cornsmut.

sent1: something does not drown do-si-do if that it does drown do-si-do and it is not allelic is not correct. sent2: that the fact that something drowns do-si-do but it is not allelic is incorrect if the fact that it is not a osier is true is true. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it drowns Desmodium and it is a osier is not correct. sent4: The candle drowns invader. sent5: the invader does drown do-si-do. sent6: the invader drowns candle. sent7: something does not drown candle or is a cornsmut or both if that it does not drown do-si-do is correct. sent8: the Kleenex is not a kind of a misoneism. sent9: The do-si-do does drown invader. sent10: the nincompoop is not a osier if there exists something such that that it does drown Desmodium and it is a kind of a osier does not hold. sent11: the invader is a cornsmut if either something does not drown candle or it is a cornsmut or both. sent12: if the invader drowns candle and does drown do-si-do the nincompoop is not allelic.

(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Kleenex is not a misoneism and not a cornsmut is not right.

¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Kleenex is not a misoneism and it is not a cornsmut. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not drown do-si-do if that it does drown do-si-do and it is not allelic is not correct. sent2: that the fact that something drowns do-si-do but it is not allelic is incorrect if the fact that it is not a osier is true is true. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it drowns Desmodium and it is a osier is not correct. sent4: The candle drowns invader. sent5: the invader does drown do-si-do. sent6: the invader drowns candle. sent7: something does not drown candle or is a cornsmut or both if that it does not drown do-si-do is correct. sent8: the Kleenex is not a kind of a misoneism. sent9: The do-si-do does drown invader. sent10: the nincompoop is not a osier if there exists something such that that it does drown Desmodium and it is a kind of a osier does not hold. sent11: the invader is a cornsmut if either something does not drown candle or it is a cornsmut or both. sent12: if the invader drowns candle and does drown do-si-do the nincompoop is not allelic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the invader drowns candle.

The invader drowns the candle.

if the invader drowns candle and does drown do-si-do the nincompoop is not allelic.

the blockbuster does not urinate wastebasket.

sent1: everything is not nidifugous. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is both a Phalangium and a contemplation. sent3: if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket then that the deinonychus is armless and it is carbonyl does not hold. sent4: something that is a argillite is a syringe. sent5: that the apprehender is not anagogic and is an unrest is wrong if it is not a kind of a limit. sent6: that the apprehender is a kind of a limit but it is not geophysical does not hold. sent7: everything is not a kind of a carbonyl. sent8: if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket the fact that the deinonychus is armless but it is not carbonyl is not right. sent9: something urinates wastebasket and is not a contemplation if that it is not a kind of a Finnish hold. sent10: the fact that the deinonychus is a kind of armless a carbonyl is incorrect. sent11: if something is non-nonmigratory thing that is a kind of a lusterware it is not a Finnish. sent12: everything is armless and it is not carbonyl. sent13: everything drowns proctology and it is not a kind of a Saigon. sent14: if the fact that the apprehender is a limit and not geophysical is not correct then it is not a kind of a limit. sent15: if the fact that the differentiator attacks stretcher-bearer is right the deinonychus is a prostate. sent16: if something is a kind of a prostate then it is not nonmigratory and it is a lusterware. sent17: the deinonychus is not carbonyl. sent18: something is a argillite if it is a Reglaecus. sent19: the differentiator does attack stretcher-bearer if the philistine does syringe. sent20: if the deinonychus is not a contemplation and does not urinate wastebasket then the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket. sent21: the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket if that the deinonychus urinate wastebasket and is not a kind of a contemplation hold.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the blockbuster urinates wastebasket.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the blockbuster does not urinate wastebasket. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is not nidifugous. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is both a Phalangium and a contemplation. sent3: if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket then that the deinonychus is armless and it is carbonyl does not hold. sent4: something that is a argillite is a syringe. sent5: that the apprehender is not anagogic and is an unrest is wrong if it is not a kind of a limit. sent6: that the apprehender is a kind of a limit but it is not geophysical does not hold. sent7: everything is not a kind of a carbonyl. sent8: if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket the fact that the deinonychus is armless but it is not carbonyl is not right. sent9: something urinates wastebasket and is not a contemplation if that it is not a kind of a Finnish hold. sent10: the fact that the deinonychus is a kind of armless a carbonyl is incorrect. sent11: if something is non-nonmigratory thing that is a kind of a lusterware it is not a Finnish. sent12: everything is armless and it is not carbonyl. sent13: everything drowns proctology and it is not a kind of a Saigon. sent14: if the fact that the apprehender is a limit and not geophysical is not correct then it is not a kind of a limit. sent15: if the fact that the differentiator attacks stretcher-bearer is right the deinonychus is a prostate. sent16: if something is a kind of a prostate then it is not nonmigratory and it is a lusterware. sent17: the deinonychus is not carbonyl. sent18: something is a argillite if it is a Reglaecus. sent19: the differentiator does attack stretcher-bearer if the philistine does syringe. sent20: if the deinonychus is not a contemplation and does not urinate wastebasket then the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket. sent21: the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket if that the deinonychus urinate wastebasket and is not a kind of a contemplation hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket hold.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the deinonychus is armless but it is not a kind of a carbonyl is not correct.; sent12 -> int2: the deinonychus is armless and is not a carbonyl.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket the fact that the deinonychus is armless but it is not carbonyl is not right.

if the blockbuster does urinate wastebasket the fact that the deinonychus is armless but it is not carbonyl is not right.

everything is armless and it is not carbonyl.

the wader is a kind of a habitation.

sent1: if a Fowler is a piranha then it is not a kind of a GPO. sent2: the wader is a tyramine. sent3: that if the wader shudders then the wader is a kind of a agamete is true. sent4: if the rapeseed is not a crap the barren does drown RAIU and it is a kind of a piranha. sent5: something is not a kind of a habitation if it is not a tyramine. sent6: the bream resuscitates if there is something such that the fact that it is not a metronome and does not resuscitates is not true. sent7: if something scours then the fact that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is false. sent8: the fact that the wader is a habitation is not incorrect if it shudders. sent9: the rapeseed is not a crap if that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is not right. sent10: if something is not a kind of a GPO that it is not a kind of a metronome and does not resuscitate is false. sent11: the barren is a Fowler if the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent12: everything is a scouring and a plumcot. sent13: the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent14: if the bream does resuscitate then the fact that the wader does not shudder but it is a kind of a habitation is false. sent15: the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine. sent16: if the wader shudders it does attack seafood.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wader is not a habitation.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wader is a kind of a habitation. ; $context$ = sent1: if a Fowler is a piranha then it is not a kind of a GPO. sent2: the wader is a tyramine. sent3: that if the wader shudders then the wader is a kind of a agamete is true. sent4: if the rapeseed is not a crap the barren does drown RAIU and it is a kind of a piranha. sent5: something is not a kind of a habitation if it is not a tyramine. sent6: the bream resuscitates if there is something such that the fact that it is not a metronome and does not resuscitates is not true. sent7: if something scours then the fact that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is false. sent8: the fact that the wader is a habitation is not incorrect if it shudders. sent9: the rapeseed is not a crap if that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is not right. sent10: if something is not a kind of a GPO that it is not a kind of a metronome and does not resuscitate is false. sent11: the barren is a Fowler if the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent12: everything is a scouring and a plumcot. sent13: the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent14: if the bream does resuscitate then the fact that the wader does not shudder but it is a kind of a habitation is false. sent15: the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine. sent16: if the wader shudders it does attack seafood. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent2 -> int1: the wader does shudder.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine.

The wader shudders if it is a tyramine.

the wader is a tyramine.

the wader is a kind of a habitation.

sent1: if a Fowler is a piranha then it is not a kind of a GPO. sent2: the wader is a tyramine. sent3: that if the wader shudders then the wader is a kind of a agamete is true. sent4: if the rapeseed is not a crap the barren does drown RAIU and it is a kind of a piranha. sent5: something is not a kind of a habitation if it is not a tyramine. sent6: the bream resuscitates if there is something such that the fact that it is not a metronome and does not resuscitates is not true. sent7: if something scours then the fact that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is false. sent8: the fact that the wader is a habitation is not incorrect if it shudders. sent9: the rapeseed is not a crap if that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is not right. sent10: if something is not a kind of a GPO that it is not a kind of a metronome and does not resuscitate is false. sent11: the barren is a Fowler if the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent12: everything is a scouring and a plumcot. sent13: the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent14: if the bream does resuscitate then the fact that the wader does not shudder but it is a kind of a habitation is false. sent15: the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine. sent16: if the wader shudders it does attack seafood.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wader is not a habitation.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wader is a kind of a habitation. ; $context$ = sent1: if a Fowler is a piranha then it is not a kind of a GPO. sent2: the wader is a tyramine. sent3: that if the wader shudders then the wader is a kind of a agamete is true. sent4: if the rapeseed is not a crap the barren does drown RAIU and it is a kind of a piranha. sent5: something is not a kind of a habitation if it is not a tyramine. sent6: the bream resuscitates if there is something such that the fact that it is not a metronome and does not resuscitates is not true. sent7: if something scours then the fact that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is false. sent8: the fact that the wader is a habitation is not incorrect if it shudders. sent9: the rapeseed is not a crap if that it is not inextinguishable and does not attack barnburner is not right. sent10: if something is not a kind of a GPO that it is not a kind of a metronome and does not resuscitate is false. sent11: the barren is a Fowler if the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent12: everything is a scouring and a plumcot. sent13: the barnburner is not a Fowler. sent14: if the bream does resuscitate then the fact that the wader does not shudder but it is a kind of a habitation is false. sent15: the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine. sent16: if the wader shudders it does attack seafood. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent2 -> int1: the wader does shudder.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the wader does shudder if it is a kind of a tyramine.

The wader shudders if it is a kind of tyramine.

the fact that the wader is a habitation is not incorrect if it shudders.

the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless.

sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{CO}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: {F}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dc} sent16: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (¬{CT}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent19: {B}{m}

PROVED

PROVED

the rustler does drown Savoy.

{AB}{dc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: that the tuck is euphoric but it does not drown Savoy is false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the pout is sugarless.; sent13 -> int3: the pout is not a scapular if the fact that it is non-antheridial thing that is not postganglionic does not hold.; sent1 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the pout is not antheridial and is not postganglionic is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pout is not a scapular.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan.

Savoy is not correct in saying that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown him.

the tuck is a Nicaraguan.

the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless.

sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{CO}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: {F}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dc} sent16: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (¬{CT}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent19: {B}{m}

PROVED

PROVED

the rustler does drown Savoy.

{AB}{dc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: that the tuck is euphoric but it does not drown Savoy is false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the pout is sugarless.; sent13 -> int3: the pout is not a scapular if the fact that it is non-antheridial thing that is not postganglionic does not hold.; sent1 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the pout is not antheridial and is not postganglionic is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pout is not a scapular.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan.

Savoy is not correct in saying that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that doesn't drown him.

the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false.

the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless.

sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{CO}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: {F}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dc} sent16: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (¬{CT}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent19: {B}{m}

PROVED

PROVED

the rustler does drown Savoy.

{AB}{dc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: that the tuck is euphoric but it does not drown Savoy is false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the pout is sugarless.; sent13 -> int3: the pout is not a scapular if the fact that it is non-antheridial thing that is not postganglionic does not hold.; sent1 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the pout is not antheridial and is not postganglionic is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pout is not a scapular.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan.

It is not correct to say that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy.

that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct.

the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless.

sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{CO}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: {F}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dc} sent16: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (¬{CT}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent19: {B}{m}

PROVED

PROVED

the rustler does drown Savoy.

{AB}{dc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: that the tuck is euphoric but it does not drown Savoy is false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the pout is sugarless.; sent13 -> int3: the pout is not a scapular if the fact that it is non-antheridial thing that is not postganglionic does not hold.; sent1 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the pout is not antheridial and is not postganglionic is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pout is not a scapular.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan.

Savoy is not correct in saying that the tuck is a kind of euphoria that does not drown him.

if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold.

the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless.

sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{CO}{b} sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: {F}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: {F}{b} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent14: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: ¬(¬{D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{dc} sent16: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: {D}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: (¬{CT}{b} & {CN}{b}) sent19: {B}{m}

PROVED

PROVED

the rustler does drown Savoy.

{AB}{dc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pout is not a scapular and is sugarless. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pout does drown oratory the fact that it is not antheridial and it is not postganglionic does not hold. sent2: the pout is not open-source. sent3: The oratory drowns pout. sent4: something drowns Savoy and it is Nicaraguan if it is not sugarless. sent5: the tuck is a Nicaraguan. sent6: if the tuck is Nicaraguan then that it is euphoric and it drowns Savoy does not hold. sent7: a postganglionic thing is non-scapular. sent8: the fact that the pout is not antheridial but it is postganglionic is not right if it drowns oratory. sent9: that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan. sent10: that the tuck is euphoric thing that drowns Savoy is incorrect. sent11: the pout is sugarless if the fact that the tuck is euphoric and does not drown Savoy is false. sent12: the pout drowns oratory. sent13: that if the fact that something is both not antheridial and not postganglionic is not correct then it is not a scapular is correct. sent14: the fact that the pout is a kind of non-antheridial thing that is postganglionic is false. sent15: if that the tuck is not postganglionic but it is sugarless is incorrect the rustler is not sugarless. sent16: the pout is sugarless if the tuck does drown Savoy. sent17: the pout is not a scapular if it is postganglionic. sent18: the pout is both not surficial and a suzerainty. sent19: the pheromone is sugarless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: that the tuck is euphoric but it does not drown Savoy is false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the pout is sugarless.; sent13 -> int3: the pout is not a scapular if the fact that it is non-antheridial thing that is not postganglionic does not hold.; sent1 & sent12 -> int4: the fact that the pout is not antheridial and is not postganglionic is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pout is not a scapular.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the tuck is a kind of euphoric thing that does not drown Savoy is not correct if it is a Nicaraguan.

It is not correct to say that the tuck is a kind of euphoria that does not drown Savoy.

the pout drowns oratory.

that the Shawnee is a kind of cacodylic thing that is a yellow is wrong.

sent1: the Shawnee is cacodylic and it is a yellow if the ovule is not a kind of a yellow. sent2: the Shawnee is a yellow. sent3: the ovule does not attack leftovers. sent4: the ovule is a cardcase. sent5: the Shawnee is a kind of a yellow if the ovule is not a yellow. sent6: something that does attack leftovers and yellows is not cacodylic. sent7: if the ovule is indexical it is a kind of a yellow. sent8: the ovule does not attack leftovers and is not a yellow. sent9: something does attack leftovers if it is an inaugural. sent10: if the ovule is a cardcase but it is not angelic it is indexical.

¬({D}{b} & {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ovule is not cacodylic.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Shawnee is a kind of cacodylic thing that is a yellow is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the Shawnee is cacodylic and it is a yellow if the ovule is not a kind of a yellow. sent2: the Shawnee is a yellow. sent3: the ovule does not attack leftovers. sent4: the ovule is a cardcase. sent5: the Shawnee is a kind of a yellow if the ovule is not a yellow. sent6: something that does attack leftovers and yellows is not cacodylic. sent7: if the ovule is indexical it is a kind of a yellow. sent8: the ovule does not attack leftovers and is not a yellow. sent9: something does attack leftovers if it is an inaugural. sent10: if the ovule is a cardcase but it is not angelic it is indexical. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the ovule is not a kind of a yellow.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the ovule does not attack leftovers and is not a yellow.

the ovule does not attack leftovers and is not a yellow.

the Shawnee is cacodylic and it is a yellow if the ovule is not a kind of a yellow.

the homophobe is not non-most-favored-nation.

sent1: the homophobe is temperamental. sent2: if something is dim then the fact that it is not a dwarf and it is temperamental is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that that it is both nonspecific and not a Lytton is false the Berliner is not a muscovite. sent4: the homophobe urinates teacart. sent5: the stethoscope is temperamental. sent6: the fact that the teacart is not a kind of a specific and it is not a kind of a Lytton is incorrect. sent7: the stethoscope is most-favored-nation if the homophobe dwarfs. sent8: if the stethoscope is a dwarf then the homophobe is most-favored-nation. sent9: that the homophobe dwarfs hold. sent10: the stethoscope is temperamental if the homophobe dwarfs. sent11: the homophobe is garlicky. sent12: the environmentalist is not non-most-favored-nation. sent13: if the stethoscope is most-favored-nation then that the homophobe is a dwarf is not incorrect.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the homophobe is not most-favored-nation.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the homophobe is not non-most-favored-nation. ; $context$ = sent1: the homophobe is temperamental. sent2: if something is dim then the fact that it is not a dwarf and it is temperamental is wrong. sent3: if there is something such that that it is both nonspecific and not a Lytton is false the Berliner is not a muscovite. sent4: the homophobe urinates teacart. sent5: the stethoscope is temperamental. sent6: the fact that the teacart is not a kind of a specific and it is not a kind of a Lytton is incorrect. sent7: the stethoscope is most-favored-nation if the homophobe dwarfs. sent8: if the stethoscope is a dwarf then the homophobe is most-favored-nation. sent9: that the homophobe dwarfs hold. sent10: the stethoscope is temperamental if the homophobe dwarfs. sent11: the homophobe is garlicky. sent12: the environmentalist is not non-most-favored-nation. sent13: if the stethoscope is most-favored-nation then that the homophobe is a dwarf is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is dim then the fact that it is not a dwarf and it is temperamental is wrong.

if something is dim then the fact that it is not a dwarf and it is temperamental is wrong.

if the stethoscope is most-favored-nation then that the homophobe is a dwarf is not incorrect.

the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the electromyography happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the archdiocesanness does not occur.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

The mutter doesn't happen and the existentialness doesn't happen.

if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur.

the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the electromyography happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the archdiocesanness does not occur.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

The existentialness doesn't happen and the mutter doesn't happen.

the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness.

the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect.

sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the electromyography happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the electromyography happens is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the smooth does not occur if the existentialness does not occur and the mutter does not occur. sent2: that the archdiocesanness and the electromyography occurs is caused by that the litter does not occur. sent3: if the mutter does not occur then the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent4: the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the pachinko does not occur is not wrong then the fact that the littering does not occur and the psychoactiveness does not occur is not false. sent6: the archdiocesanness is prevented by the non-existentialness. sent7: if the existentialness does not occur then both the electromyography and the mutter happens. sent8: the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the archdiocesanness does not occur.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the mutter does not occur and/or the existentialness does not occur.

The existentialness does not occur.

the electromyography does not occur if the archdiocesanness does not occur.

the accommodation occurs and the release happens.

sent1: the typeset bettering happens. sent2: if the cannibalism happens the fact that the marveling bullheaded occurs is not false. sent3: that the reseeding and the accommodation happens hold if that the micrometry does not occur is true. sent4: that the conic occurs prevents that the release does not occur. sent5: that the releasing but not the conicness happens prevents that the micrometry happens. sent6: the conic occurs. sent7: the micrometry occurs. sent8: not the returnableness but the deprecating drizzling occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent9: the conic does not occur and the micrometry does not occur if the returnableness occurs. sent10: if that the usefulness does not occur hold then not the chelating but the crying happens. sent11: not the deprecating drizzling but the reseeding occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent12: the returnableness happens if the deprecating drizzling does not occur. sent13: the cannibalism happens and the Irish happens if the chelating does not occur. sent14: the fact that the accommodation and the releasing happens is false if that the micrometry does not occur is not false. sent15: both the accommodation and the micrometry happens. sent16: the bibliolatry happens.

({A} & {C})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the accommodation and the release occurs does not hold.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the accommodation occurs and the release happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the typeset bettering happens. sent2: if the cannibalism happens the fact that the marveling bullheaded occurs is not false. sent3: that the reseeding and the accommodation happens hold if that the micrometry does not occur is true. sent4: that the conic occurs prevents that the release does not occur. sent5: that the releasing but not the conicness happens prevents that the micrometry happens. sent6: the conic occurs. sent7: the micrometry occurs. sent8: not the returnableness but the deprecating drizzling occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent9: the conic does not occur and the micrometry does not occur if the returnableness occurs. sent10: if that the usefulness does not occur hold then not the chelating but the crying happens. sent11: not the deprecating drizzling but the reseeding occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent12: the returnableness happens if the deprecating drizzling does not occur. sent13: the cannibalism happens and the Irish happens if the chelating does not occur. sent14: the fact that the accommodation and the releasing happens is false if that the micrometry does not occur is not false. sent15: both the accommodation and the micrometry happens. sent16: the bibliolatry happens. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the accommodation occurs.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the releasing happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the accommodation and the micrometry happens.

The micrometry and the accommodation happen at the same time.

that the conic occurs prevents that the release does not occur.

the accommodation occurs and the release happens.

sent1: the typeset bettering happens. sent2: if the cannibalism happens the fact that the marveling bullheaded occurs is not false. sent3: that the reseeding and the accommodation happens hold if that the micrometry does not occur is true. sent4: that the conic occurs prevents that the release does not occur. sent5: that the releasing but not the conicness happens prevents that the micrometry happens. sent6: the conic occurs. sent7: the micrometry occurs. sent8: not the returnableness but the deprecating drizzling occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent9: the conic does not occur and the micrometry does not occur if the returnableness occurs. sent10: if that the usefulness does not occur hold then not the chelating but the crying happens. sent11: not the deprecating drizzling but the reseeding occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent12: the returnableness happens if the deprecating drizzling does not occur. sent13: the cannibalism happens and the Irish happens if the chelating does not occur. sent14: the fact that the accommodation and the releasing happens is false if that the micrometry does not occur is not false. sent15: both the accommodation and the micrometry happens. sent16: the bibliolatry happens.

({A} & {C})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the accommodation and the release occurs does not hold.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the accommodation occurs and the release happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the typeset bettering happens. sent2: if the cannibalism happens the fact that the marveling bullheaded occurs is not false. sent3: that the reseeding and the accommodation happens hold if that the micrometry does not occur is true. sent4: that the conic occurs prevents that the release does not occur. sent5: that the releasing but not the conicness happens prevents that the micrometry happens. sent6: the conic occurs. sent7: the micrometry occurs. sent8: not the returnableness but the deprecating drizzling occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent9: the conic does not occur and the micrometry does not occur if the returnableness occurs. sent10: if that the usefulness does not occur hold then not the chelating but the crying happens. sent11: not the deprecating drizzling but the reseeding occurs if the marveling bullheaded happens. sent12: the returnableness happens if the deprecating drizzling does not occur. sent13: the cannibalism happens and the Irish happens if the chelating does not occur. sent14: the fact that the accommodation and the releasing happens is false if that the micrometry does not occur is not false. sent15: both the accommodation and the micrometry happens. sent16: the bibliolatry happens. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the accommodation occurs.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the releasing happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the accommodation and the micrometry happens.

The micrometry and the accommodation occur at the same time.

the conic occurs.

the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason.

sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent2: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ({Q}{b} & ¬{AT}{b}) sent6: ¬{B}{r} sent7: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{b} sent9: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: {C}{ge} sent11: ({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬{E}{b} sent13: ¬{AP}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the dryer is not non-aquicultural.; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: the dryer is not a Freemason.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle.

If the dryer doesn't guzzle, it's aquicultural.

the dryer does not guzzle.

the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason.

sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent2: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ({Q}{b} & ¬{AT}{b}) sent6: ¬{B}{r} sent7: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{b} sent9: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: {C}{ge} sent11: ({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬{E}{b} sent13: ¬{AP}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the dryer is not non-aquicultural.; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: the dryer is not a Freemason.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle.

If the dryer doesn't use much, it's aquicultural.

if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason.

the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason.

sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric.

({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> {B}{b} sent2: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ({Q}{b} & ¬{AT}{b}) sent6: ¬{B}{r} sent7: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{b} sent9: ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: {C}{ge} sent11: ({B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬{E}{b} sent13: ¬{AP}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the dryer is both aquicultural and not a Freemason. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fielder is not a kind of a Freemason then the fact that it is aquicultural is correct. sent2: the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation. sent3: the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle. sent4: the dryer does not guzzle. sent5: the fact that the fielder is a carnallite but not infinite hold. sent6: the hemimorphite is not aquicultural. sent7: the dryer is not aquicultural if the fielder is aquicultural and does guzzle. sent8: the fielder is not aquicultural. sent9: if the fielder is a kind of a Freemason but it does not typeset excavation the dryer is not a Freemason. sent10: that the xylem is a kind of a Freemason is right. sent11: if the dryer is aquicultural and guzzles then the fielder is aquicultural. sent12: the fielder is not hidrotic. sent13: the dryer is not concentric. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the dryer is not non-aquicultural.; sent9 & sent2 -> int2: the dryer is not a Freemason.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dryer is aquicultural if it does not guzzle.

If the dryer doesn't use, it's aquicultural.

the fielder is a kind of a Freemason that does not typeset excavation.

the centeredness but not the wondering epoxy happens.

sent1: the wondering two-dimensionality happens and the downstageness happens. sent2: if the irresponsibleness happens the wondering epoxy does not occur and the homileticsness does not occur. sent3: that the mindlessness happens is prevented by that the downstage but not the looting happens. sent4: the homileticsness and the non-irresponsibleness occurs if the gloriousness does not occur. sent5: if the mindlessness does not occur that the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is not true. sent6: either the wondering promethium occurs or the monopsony does not occur or both if the deprecating Midland does not occur. sent7: the homileticsness does not occur. sent8: the deprecating Midland occurs. sent9: if the bankruptcy does not occur then the looting does not occur. sent10: if the deprecating Midland does not occur the fact that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is false. sent11: that the bankruptcy does not occur and the marveling onset does not occur is triggered by the radiophotography. sent12: the microscopicness or the deprecating bunny or both happens. sent13: that the homileticsness does not occur is correct if the irresponsibleness happens. sent14: that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs. sent15: the heartlessness does not occur and the tetherball does not occur. sent16: the centering occurs if the deprecating bunny does not occur. sent17: if the homileticsness happens then the centeredness does not occur and the wondering epoxy does not occur. sent18: if that that both the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is incorrect is correct the gloriousness does not occur. sent19: the centered happens if the microscopicness happens or the deprecating bunny does not occur or both. sent20: the fact that the deprecating bunny does not occur and the microscopicness does not occur is wrong if the centering does not occur.

({D} & ¬{E})

sent1: ({O} & {K}) sent2: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent3: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{I} sent4: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{I} -> ¬({J} & {H}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ({FT} v ¬{FK}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{M} -> ¬{L} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E}) sent11: {P} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent12: ({B} v {C}) sent13: {G} -> ¬{F} sent14: {A} -> {B} sent15: (¬{GF} & ¬{AF}) sent16: ¬{C} -> {D} sent17: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent18: ¬({J} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent19: ({B} v ¬{C}) -> {D} sent20: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is incorrect.

¬({D} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centeredness but not the wondering epoxy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the wondering two-dimensionality happens and the downstageness happens. sent2: if the irresponsibleness happens the wondering epoxy does not occur and the homileticsness does not occur. sent3: that the mindlessness happens is prevented by that the downstage but not the looting happens. sent4: the homileticsness and the non-irresponsibleness occurs if the gloriousness does not occur. sent5: if the mindlessness does not occur that the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is not true. sent6: either the wondering promethium occurs or the monopsony does not occur or both if the deprecating Midland does not occur. sent7: the homileticsness does not occur. sent8: the deprecating Midland occurs. sent9: if the bankruptcy does not occur then the looting does not occur. sent10: if the deprecating Midland does not occur the fact that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is false. sent11: that the bankruptcy does not occur and the marveling onset does not occur is triggered by the radiophotography. sent12: the microscopicness or the deprecating bunny or both happens. sent13: that the homileticsness does not occur is correct if the irresponsibleness happens. sent14: that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs. sent15: the heartlessness does not occur and the tetherball does not occur. sent16: the centering occurs if the deprecating bunny does not occur. sent17: if the homileticsness happens then the centeredness does not occur and the wondering epoxy does not occur. sent18: if that that both the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is incorrect is correct the gloriousness does not occur. sent19: the centered happens if the microscopicness happens or the deprecating bunny does not occur or both. sent20: the fact that the deprecating bunny does not occur and the microscopicness does not occur is wrong if the centering does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs.

It's triggered by the deprecating Midland, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the deprecating Midland occurs.

the centeredness but not the wondering epoxy happens.

sent1: the wondering two-dimensionality happens and the downstageness happens. sent2: if the irresponsibleness happens the wondering epoxy does not occur and the homileticsness does not occur. sent3: that the mindlessness happens is prevented by that the downstage but not the looting happens. sent4: the homileticsness and the non-irresponsibleness occurs if the gloriousness does not occur. sent5: if the mindlessness does not occur that the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is not true. sent6: either the wondering promethium occurs or the monopsony does not occur or both if the deprecating Midland does not occur. sent7: the homileticsness does not occur. sent8: the deprecating Midland occurs. sent9: if the bankruptcy does not occur then the looting does not occur. sent10: if the deprecating Midland does not occur the fact that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is false. sent11: that the bankruptcy does not occur and the marveling onset does not occur is triggered by the radiophotography. sent12: the microscopicness or the deprecating bunny or both happens. sent13: that the homileticsness does not occur is correct if the irresponsibleness happens. sent14: that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs. sent15: the heartlessness does not occur and the tetherball does not occur. sent16: the centering occurs if the deprecating bunny does not occur. sent17: if the homileticsness happens then the centeredness does not occur and the wondering epoxy does not occur. sent18: if that that both the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is incorrect is correct the gloriousness does not occur. sent19: the centered happens if the microscopicness happens or the deprecating bunny does not occur or both. sent20: the fact that the deprecating bunny does not occur and the microscopicness does not occur is wrong if the centering does not occur.

({D} & ¬{E})

sent1: ({O} & {K}) sent2: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent3: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{I} sent4: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent5: ¬{I} -> ¬({J} & {H}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ({FT} v ¬{FK}) sent7: ¬{F} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{M} -> ¬{L} sent10: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E}) sent11: {P} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent12: ({B} v {C}) sent13: {G} -> ¬{F} sent14: {A} -> {B} sent15: (¬{GF} & ¬{AF}) sent16: ¬{C} -> {D} sent17: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent18: ¬({J} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent19: ({B} v ¬{C}) -> {D} sent20: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is incorrect.

¬({D} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centeredness but not the wondering epoxy happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the wondering two-dimensionality happens and the downstageness happens. sent2: if the irresponsibleness happens the wondering epoxy does not occur and the homileticsness does not occur. sent3: that the mindlessness happens is prevented by that the downstage but not the looting happens. sent4: the homileticsness and the non-irresponsibleness occurs if the gloriousness does not occur. sent5: if the mindlessness does not occur that the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is not true. sent6: either the wondering promethium occurs or the monopsony does not occur or both if the deprecating Midland does not occur. sent7: the homileticsness does not occur. sent8: the deprecating Midland occurs. sent9: if the bankruptcy does not occur then the looting does not occur. sent10: if the deprecating Midland does not occur the fact that the centered but not the wondering epoxy happens is false. sent11: that the bankruptcy does not occur and the marveling onset does not occur is triggered by the radiophotography. sent12: the microscopicness or the deprecating bunny or both happens. sent13: that the homileticsness does not occur is correct if the irresponsibleness happens. sent14: that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs. sent15: the heartlessness does not occur and the tetherball does not occur. sent16: the centering occurs if the deprecating bunny does not occur. sent17: if the homileticsness happens then the centeredness does not occur and the wondering epoxy does not occur. sent18: if that that both the typeset benevolence and the gloriousness happens is incorrect is correct the gloriousness does not occur. sent19: the centered happens if the microscopicness happens or the deprecating bunny does not occur or both. sent20: the fact that the deprecating bunny does not occur and the microscopicness does not occur is wrong if the centering does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the microscopicness happens is triggered by that the deprecating Midland occurs.

It's triggered by the deprecating Midland, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the centered happens if the microscopicness happens or the deprecating bunny does not occur or both.

the crampbark is a supplication.

sent1: if the fact that something does not marvel hame is true then it is not a resinoid and/or it is a American. sent2: if there are homeopathic things the hame is not a stockist. sent3: if something is flinty then the fact that it does not deprecate madrilene and is not inconsolable does not hold. sent4: the girandole is homeopathic if that the putz does not deprecate madrilene and it is not inconsolable is false. sent5: if the reaction is a protohistory the crampbark is a supplication. sent6: the reaction is a supplication. sent7: the putz is flinty if the cubitus is not a resinoid or it is American or both. sent8: the battlement does squelch. sent9: the battlement does marvel hame if there exists something such that it does not marvel bodkin. sent10: the tabbouleh is a kind of a supplication. sent11: something is indoor if it is a kind of a squelch. sent12: if the battlement marvels hame and it is indoor then the cubitus does not marvels hame. sent13: if the crampbark is a protohistory the reaction is a supplication. sent14: the crampbark is a protohistory. sent15: there is something such that that it does not marvel bodkin is not false.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the crampbark is not a supplication.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crampbark is a supplication. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not marvel hame is true then it is not a resinoid and/or it is a American. sent2: if there are homeopathic things the hame is not a stockist. sent3: if something is flinty then the fact that it does not deprecate madrilene and is not inconsolable does not hold. sent4: the girandole is homeopathic if that the putz does not deprecate madrilene and it is not inconsolable is false. sent5: if the reaction is a protohistory the crampbark is a supplication. sent6: the reaction is a supplication. sent7: the putz is flinty if the cubitus is not a resinoid or it is American or both. sent8: the battlement does squelch. sent9: the battlement does marvel hame if there exists something such that it does not marvel bodkin. sent10: the tabbouleh is a kind of a supplication. sent11: something is indoor if it is a kind of a squelch. sent12: if the battlement marvels hame and it is indoor then the cubitus does not marvels hame. sent13: if the crampbark is a protohistory the reaction is a supplication. sent14: the crampbark is a protohistory. sent15: there is something such that that it does not marvel bodkin is not false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is flinty then the fact that it does not deprecate madrilene and is not inconsolable does not hold.

if something is flinty then the fact that it does not deprecate madrilene and is not inconsolable does not hold.

the crampbark is a protohistory.

that the AAS is not an immigration is not false.

sent1: if something is a past the AAS is not an immigration. sent2: there is something such that it is bureaucratic and it is not past. sent3: if the Venetian is not cybernetic then the residue typesets quill and is not an immigration. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is both an immigration and not bureaucratic is not right then the Castillian is not a past. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is bureaucratic and it is a past is not correct. sent6: the fact that the Castillian is bureaucratic and is a past is incorrect. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of bureaucratic thing that is not a kind of a past does not hold the AAS is not an immigration. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is an immigration and it is not a kind of a past is not true. sent9: that the Castillian is bureaucratic but it is not a past is not right. sent10: the toadshade is bituminoid if it is a cheek. sent11: if there exists something such that it is bureaucratic the Castillian is not a kind of an immigration. sent12: if something is not a kind of a nomad and/or does not deprecate Iraqi then it is not cybernetic. sent13: there exists something such that that it is bureaucratic and is not an immigration is wrong. sent14: that the Castillian is not an immigration is not wrong. sent15: if something is a kind of a gone then it is a cheek. sent16: if the residue typesets quill but it is not an immigration the AAS is a kind of an immigration. sent17: something is a yardgrass if that it is bituminoid is correct.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the AAS is an immigration.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the AAS is not an immigration is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a past the AAS is not an immigration. sent2: there is something such that it is bureaucratic and it is not past. sent3: if the Venetian is not cybernetic then the residue typesets quill and is not an immigration. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is both an immigration and not bureaucratic is not right then the Castillian is not a past. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is bureaucratic and it is a past is not correct. sent6: the fact that the Castillian is bureaucratic and is a past is incorrect. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of bureaucratic thing that is not a kind of a past does not hold the AAS is not an immigration. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is an immigration and it is not a kind of a past is not true. sent9: that the Castillian is bureaucratic but it is not a past is not right. sent10: the toadshade is bituminoid if it is a cheek. sent11: if there exists something such that it is bureaucratic the Castillian is not a kind of an immigration. sent12: if something is not a kind of a nomad and/or does not deprecate Iraqi then it is not cybernetic. sent13: there exists something such that that it is bureaucratic and is not an immigration is wrong. sent14: that the Castillian is not an immigration is not wrong. sent15: if something is a kind of a gone then it is a cheek. sent16: if the residue typesets quill but it is not an immigration the AAS is a kind of an immigration. sent17: something is a yardgrass if that it is bituminoid is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: there is something such that that it is both bureaucratic and not past is wrong.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the Castillian is bureaucratic but it is not a past is not right.

that the Castillian is bureaucratic but it is not a past is not right.

if there exists something such that that it is a kind of bureaucratic thing that is not a kind of a past does not hold the AAS is not an immigration.

the wondering visualizer does not occur.

sent1: the fact that both the wondering hound and the non-anemometricness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the marveling Coward does not occur that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the plume does not occur and the anemometricness does not occur is wrong. sent5: the marveling Coward happens. sent6: that the wondering visualizer occurs is true if the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is false. sent7: the fact that both the non-anemophilousness and the deprecating Zinnemann occurs is incorrect.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬({II} & ¬{ET}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{IO} & ¬{GD}) sent3: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{ET}) sent5: {A} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{IO} & ¬{GD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wondering visualizer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the wondering hound and the non-anemometricness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the marveling Coward does not occur that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the plume does not occur and the anemometricness does not occur is wrong. sent5: the marveling Coward happens. sent6: that the wondering visualizer occurs is true if the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is false. sent7: the fact that both the non-anemophilousness and the deprecating Zinnemann occurs is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect.

The anemophilousness is incorrect if the marveling Coward happens.

the marveling Coward happens.

the wondering visualizer does not occur.

sent1: the fact that both the wondering hound and the non-anemometricness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the marveling Coward does not occur that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the plume does not occur and the anemometricness does not occur is wrong. sent5: the marveling Coward happens. sent6: that the wondering visualizer occurs is true if the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is false. sent7: the fact that both the non-anemophilousness and the deprecating Zinnemann occurs is incorrect.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬({II} & ¬{ET}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{IO} & ¬{GD}) sent3: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{ET}) sent5: {A} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{IO} & ¬{GD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wondering visualizer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the wondering hound and the non-anemometricness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the marveling Coward does not occur that the marveling Pomatomidae does not occur and the upper-classness does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the plume does not occur and the anemometricness does not occur is wrong. sent5: the marveling Coward happens. sent6: that the wondering visualizer occurs is true if the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is false. sent7: the fact that both the non-anemophilousness and the deprecating Zinnemann occurs is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the marveling Coward happens then that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is incorrect.

The anemophilousness does not occur if the marveling Coward happens.

that the wondering visualizer occurs is true if the fact that the anemophilousness does not occur and the deprecating Zinnemann does not occur is false.

the Mohawk is cataplastic.

sent1: the Mohawk is not cataplastic if it is not a schooling. sent2: the Mohawk is not a schooling.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Mohawk is cataplastic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Mohawk is not cataplastic if it is not a schooling. sent2: the Mohawk is not a schooling. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Mohawk is not cataplastic if it is not a schooling.

the Mohawk is not cataplastic if it is not a schooling.

the Mohawk is not a schooling.

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

sent1: if something is actinomycetal a yenta it is not insecure. sent2: there is something such that it is not a moleskin. sent3: there exists something such that it is a placental. sent4: the chap does not marvel tract if it is actinomycetal thing that is a kind of a xenolith. sent5: there exists something such that it is insecure. sent6: the chap is a kind of a yenta. sent7: the chap is geological and it does marvel fast. sent8: a non-insecure thing is a yenta and is actinomycetal. sent9: the chap is not a kind of a anoa if it is a pinkness and it is magnetic. sent10: if the elaphure is an oilman it is a Sphyraenidae and it is not magnetic. sent11: the chap is actinomycetal. sent12: if the withe is not magnetic then the sluggard does wonder Manannan and it does reason. sent13: the elaphure is an oilman. sent14: the chap wonders Merman. sent15: if the elaphure is a Sphyraenidae and not magnetic that the withe is not magnetic is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a current. sent17: the captain is not a kind of a yenta.

¬((Ex): ¬{C}x)

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{IT}x sent3: (Ex): {BU}x sent4: ({A}{a} & {AD}{a}) -> ¬{ID}{a} sent5: (Ex): {C}x sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ({IN}{a} & {FK}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent9: ({CN}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{ES}{a} sent10: {H}{d} -> ({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent13: {H}{d} sent14: {HS}{a} sent15: ({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent16: (Ex): ¬{GD}x sent17: ¬{B}{ir}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gemfibrozil is actinomycetal.

{A}{fq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is not insecure is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is actinomycetal a yenta it is not insecure. sent2: there is something such that it is not a moleskin. sent3: there exists something such that it is a placental. sent4: the chap does not marvel tract if it is actinomycetal thing that is a kind of a xenolith. sent5: there exists something such that it is insecure. sent6: the chap is a kind of a yenta. sent7: the chap is geological and it does marvel fast. sent8: a non-insecure thing is a yenta and is actinomycetal. sent9: the chap is not a kind of a anoa if it is a pinkness and it is magnetic. sent10: if the elaphure is an oilman it is a Sphyraenidae and it is not magnetic. sent11: the chap is actinomycetal. sent12: if the withe is not magnetic then the sluggard does wonder Manannan and it does reason. sent13: the elaphure is an oilman. sent14: the chap wonders Merman. sent15: if the elaphure is a Sphyraenidae and not magnetic that the withe is not magnetic is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a current. sent17: the captain is not a kind of a yenta. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the chap is a kind of actinomycetal thing that is a yenta.; sent1 -> int2: the chap is not insecure if it is not non-actinomycetal and it is a kind of a yenta.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chap is not insecure.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chap is actinomycetal.

The chap is named actinomycetal.

the chap is a kind of a yenta.

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

sent1: if something is actinomycetal a yenta it is not insecure. sent2: there is something such that it is not a moleskin. sent3: there exists something such that it is a placental. sent4: the chap does not marvel tract if it is actinomycetal thing that is a kind of a xenolith. sent5: there exists something such that it is insecure. sent6: the chap is a kind of a yenta. sent7: the chap is geological and it does marvel fast. sent8: a non-insecure thing is a yenta and is actinomycetal. sent9: the chap is not a kind of a anoa if it is a pinkness and it is magnetic. sent10: if the elaphure is an oilman it is a Sphyraenidae and it is not magnetic. sent11: the chap is actinomycetal. sent12: if the withe is not magnetic then the sluggard does wonder Manannan and it does reason. sent13: the elaphure is an oilman. sent14: the chap wonders Merman. sent15: if the elaphure is a Sphyraenidae and not magnetic that the withe is not magnetic is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a current. sent17: the captain is not a kind of a yenta.

¬((Ex): ¬{C}x)

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{IT}x sent3: (Ex): {BU}x sent4: ({A}{a} & {AD}{a}) -> ¬{ID}{a} sent5: (Ex): {C}x sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ({IN}{a} & {FK}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent9: ({CN}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{ES}{a} sent10: {H}{d} -> ({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent13: {H}{d} sent14: {HS}{a} sent15: ({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent16: (Ex): ¬{GD}x sent17: ¬{B}{ir}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gemfibrozil is actinomycetal.

{A}{fq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it is not insecure is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is actinomycetal a yenta it is not insecure. sent2: there is something such that it is not a moleskin. sent3: there exists something such that it is a placental. sent4: the chap does not marvel tract if it is actinomycetal thing that is a kind of a xenolith. sent5: there exists something such that it is insecure. sent6: the chap is a kind of a yenta. sent7: the chap is geological and it does marvel fast. sent8: a non-insecure thing is a yenta and is actinomycetal. sent9: the chap is not a kind of a anoa if it is a pinkness and it is magnetic. sent10: if the elaphure is an oilman it is a Sphyraenidae and it is not magnetic. sent11: the chap is actinomycetal. sent12: if the withe is not magnetic then the sluggard does wonder Manannan and it does reason. sent13: the elaphure is an oilman. sent14: the chap wonders Merman. sent15: if the elaphure is a Sphyraenidae and not magnetic that the withe is not magnetic is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is not a current. sent17: the captain is not a kind of a yenta. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent6 -> int1: the chap is a kind of actinomycetal thing that is a yenta.; sent1 -> int2: the chap is not insecure if it is not non-actinomycetal and it is a kind of a yenta.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chap is not insecure.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chap is actinomycetal.

The man is called actinomycetal.

if something is actinomycetal a yenta it is not insecure.

that the half-light is myocardial and it is an intercom does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the toastrack is not myocardial but it is a kind of a gadoid is false if it is not a spam. sent2: if something is not a gasbag then it does not regard. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of myocardial thing that is a kind of an intercom is not true if it is not a kind of a regard. sent4: if the toastrack is a kind of diligent thing that is a kind of a baryon the half-light is not a gasbag.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the half-light is myocardial and it is an intercom.

({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the half-light is myocardial and it is an intercom does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the toastrack is not myocardial but it is a kind of a gadoid is false if it is not a spam. sent2: if something is not a gasbag then it does not regard. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of myocardial thing that is a kind of an intercom is not true if it is not a kind of a regard. sent4: if the toastrack is a kind of diligent thing that is a kind of a baryon the half-light is not a gasbag. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not a gasbag then it does not regard.

if something is not a gasbag then it does not regard.

the fact that something is a kind of myocardial thing that is a kind of an intercom is not true if it is not a kind of a regard.

that the Lincoln is not a milligram is true.

sent1: The sealer does not marvel undesirable. sent2: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment then it does marvel sealer. sent3: the Lincoln is not a kind of a bombardment but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent4: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent5: if the undesirable does not marvel sealer then the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent6: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent7: the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent8: the undesirable does not marvel numbers and is a kind of a bombardment. sent9: the undesirable does not deprecate impertinence but it is a kind of a little. sent10: the Lincoln is a milligram if it does marvel cartridge and is a bombardment. sent11: something is not a homeboy and marvels sealer if it is departmental. sent12: that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent13: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment that it is a milligram is true. sent14: something ensnares if that it is not a hypernym and it does refine is right. sent15: if something that does not marvel sealer is a kind of a milligram it is a bombardment. sent16: if the Lincoln does not marvel sealer then the undesirable is not a milligram and is a bombardment. sent17: the undesirable is both not obtrusive and a smack. sent18: the Lincoln marvels sealer. sent19: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it does marvel sealer. sent20: the Lincoln is a heroic. sent21: something that is non-hormonal thing that is runic is a gusher. sent22: if something does marvel cartridge and it is a bombardment it is a milligram. sent23: the undesirable is chordal if it is both not a Trevelyan and a milligram.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{AC}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent6: ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: (¬{DU}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (¬{HB}{a} & {IF}{a}) sent10: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent11: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: (x): (¬{EB}x & {IB}x) -> {BI}x sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {AB}x sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: (¬{BH}{a} & {BC}{a}) sent18: {A}{b} sent19: (¬{AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent20: {BU}{b} sent21: (x): (¬{HS}x & {IQ}x) -> {DL}x sent22: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent23: (¬{O}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {GM}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Lincoln is not a milligram is not false.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Lincoln is not a milligram is true. ; $context$ = sent1: The sealer does not marvel undesirable. sent2: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment then it does marvel sealer. sent3: the Lincoln is not a kind of a bombardment but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent4: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent5: if the undesirable does not marvel sealer then the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent6: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent7: the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent8: the undesirable does not marvel numbers and is a kind of a bombardment. sent9: the undesirable does not deprecate impertinence but it is a kind of a little. sent10: the Lincoln is a milligram if it does marvel cartridge and is a bombardment. sent11: something is not a homeboy and marvels sealer if it is departmental. sent12: that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent13: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment that it is a milligram is true. sent14: something ensnares if that it is not a hypernym and it does refine is right. sent15: if something that does not marvel sealer is a kind of a milligram it is a bombardment. sent16: if the Lincoln does not marvel sealer then the undesirable is not a milligram and is a bombardment. sent17: the undesirable is both not obtrusive and a smack. sent18: the Lincoln marvels sealer. sent19: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it does marvel sealer. sent20: the Lincoln is a heroic. sent21: something that is non-hormonal thing that is runic is a gusher. sent22: if something does marvel cartridge and it is a bombardment it is a milligram. sent23: the undesirable is chordal if it is both not a Trevelyan and a milligram. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent7 -> int1: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge and is a kind of a bombardment.; sent13 -> int2: if that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a bombardment is not wrong the fact that it is a milligram hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer.

It is a kind of bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer.

the undesirable does not marvel sealer.

that the Lincoln is not a milligram is true.

sent1: The sealer does not marvel undesirable. sent2: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment then it does marvel sealer. sent3: the Lincoln is not a kind of a bombardment but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent4: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent5: if the undesirable does not marvel sealer then the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent6: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent7: the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent8: the undesirable does not marvel numbers and is a kind of a bombardment. sent9: the undesirable does not deprecate impertinence but it is a kind of a little. sent10: the Lincoln is a milligram if it does marvel cartridge and is a bombardment. sent11: something is not a homeboy and marvels sealer if it is departmental. sent12: that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent13: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment that it is a milligram is true. sent14: something ensnares if that it is not a hypernym and it does refine is right. sent15: if something that does not marvel sealer is a kind of a milligram it is a bombardment. sent16: if the Lincoln does not marvel sealer then the undesirable is not a milligram and is a bombardment. sent17: the undesirable is both not obtrusive and a smack. sent18: the Lincoln marvels sealer. sent19: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it does marvel sealer. sent20: the Lincoln is a heroic. sent21: something that is non-hormonal thing that is runic is a gusher. sent22: if something does marvel cartridge and it is a bombardment it is a milligram. sent23: the undesirable is chordal if it is both not a Trevelyan and a milligram.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{AC}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}x sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent6: ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: (¬{DU}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (¬{HB}{a} & {IF}{a}) sent10: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> {B}{b} sent11: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: (x): (¬{EB}x & {IB}x) -> {BI}x sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {AB}x sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: (¬{BH}{a} & {BC}{a}) sent18: {A}{b} sent19: (¬{AA}{b} & {A}{b}) sent20: {BU}{b} sent21: (x): (¬{HS}x & {IQ}x) -> {DL}x sent22: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent23: (¬{O}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {GM}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the Lincoln is not a milligram is not false.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Lincoln is not a milligram is true. ; $context$ = sent1: The sealer does not marvel undesirable. sent2: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment then it does marvel sealer. sent3: the Lincoln is not a kind of a bombardment but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent4: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it marvels sealer if the undesirable is not a milligram. sent5: if the undesirable does not marvel sealer then the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent6: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge. sent7: the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent8: the undesirable does not marvel numbers and is a kind of a bombardment. sent9: the undesirable does not deprecate impertinence but it is a kind of a little. sent10: the Lincoln is a milligram if it does marvel cartridge and is a bombardment. sent11: something is not a homeboy and marvels sealer if it is departmental. sent12: that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer. sent13: if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment that it is a milligram is true. sent14: something ensnares if that it is not a hypernym and it does refine is right. sent15: if something that does not marvel sealer is a kind of a milligram it is a bombardment. sent16: if the Lincoln does not marvel sealer then the undesirable is not a milligram and is a bombardment. sent17: the undesirable is both not obtrusive and a smack. sent18: the Lincoln marvels sealer. sent19: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it does marvel sealer. sent20: the Lincoln is a heroic. sent21: something that is non-hormonal thing that is runic is a gusher. sent22: if something does marvel cartridge and it is a bombardment it is a milligram. sent23: the undesirable is chordal if it is both not a Trevelyan and a milligram. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent7 -> int1: the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge and is a kind of a bombardment.; sent13 -> int2: if that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a bombardment is not wrong the fact that it is a milligram hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the Lincoln does not marvel cartridge but it is a kind of a bombardment hold if the undesirable does not marvel sealer.

The Lincoln does not marvel, but it is a kind of bombardment hold if the undesirable does not.

if something that does not marvel cartridge is a bombardment that it is a milligram is true.

the magnetism is not a kind of a unconscientiousness.

sent1: the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a kind of a hob but it is not a unconscientiousness. sent2: if the fact that the blueprint is both not a stare and a Robinson is wrong the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson. sent3: if something is a kind of a Robinson it is a hob and it is not a unconscientiousness. sent4: the fact that the fact that the blancmange is non-supraorbital and it is non-Colombian is not correct is true if that it is a kind of a statuary is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is a archpriest the blueprint hobs. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a archpriest and it is genitourinary is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct. sent8: the magnetism is a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a hob. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a archpriest and it is not genitourinary is not right. sent10: something is not a Arafat if the fact that it is not supraorbital and not Colombian does not hold. sent11: something is not a Robinson and not a stare if it wonders blancmange. sent12: the blueprint is a Robinson if the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson and it does not stare. sent13: something is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary. sent14: something is not a kind of a unconscientiousness if the fact that it is both a unconscientiousness and a hob is incorrect. sent15: the blancmange is a kind of a statuary. sent16: if the blueprint is a unconscientiousness the magnetism is a kind of a hob. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is both not a archpriest and not genitourinary is incorrect the blueprint is a hob.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness.

{B}{gm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetism is not a kind of a unconscientiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a kind of a hob but it is not a unconscientiousness. sent2: if the fact that the blueprint is both not a stare and a Robinson is wrong the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson. sent3: if something is a kind of a Robinson it is a hob and it is not a unconscientiousness. sent4: the fact that the fact that the blancmange is non-supraorbital and it is non-Colombian is not correct is true if that it is a kind of a statuary is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is a archpriest the blueprint hobs. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a archpriest and it is genitourinary is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct. sent8: the magnetism is a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a hob. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a archpriest and it is not genitourinary is not right. sent10: something is not a Arafat if the fact that it is not supraorbital and not Colombian does not hold. sent11: something is not a Robinson and not a stare if it wonders blancmange. sent12: the blueprint is a Robinson if the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson and it does not stare. sent13: something is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary. sent14: something is not a kind of a unconscientiousness if the fact that it is both a unconscientiousness and a hob is incorrect. sent15: the blancmange is a kind of a statuary. sent16: if the blueprint is a unconscientiousness the magnetism is a kind of a hob. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is both not a archpriest and not genitourinary is incorrect the blueprint is a hob. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent17 -> int1: that the blueprint is a kind of a hob is not incorrect.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct.

The fact that it is not an archpriest and not genitourinary is not correct.

if there exists something such that that it is both not a archpriest and not genitourinary is incorrect the blueprint is a hob.

the magnetism is not a kind of a unconscientiousness.

sent1: the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a kind of a hob but it is not a unconscientiousness. sent2: if the fact that the blueprint is both not a stare and a Robinson is wrong the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson. sent3: if something is a kind of a Robinson it is a hob and it is not a unconscientiousness. sent4: the fact that the fact that the blancmange is non-supraorbital and it is non-Colombian is not correct is true if that it is a kind of a statuary is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is a archpriest the blueprint hobs. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a archpriest and it is genitourinary is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct. sent8: the magnetism is a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a hob. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a archpriest and it is not genitourinary is not right. sent10: something is not a Arafat if the fact that it is not supraorbital and not Colombian does not hold. sent11: something is not a Robinson and not a stare if it wonders blancmange. sent12: the blueprint is a Robinson if the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson and it does not stare. sent13: something is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary. sent14: something is not a kind of a unconscientiousness if the fact that it is both a unconscientiousness and a hob is incorrect. sent15: the blancmange is a kind of a statuary. sent16: if the blueprint is a unconscientiousness the magnetism is a kind of a hob. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is both not a archpriest and not genitourinary is incorrect the blueprint is a hob.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness.

{B}{gm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the magnetism is not a kind of a unconscientiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: the mirage is a kind of a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a kind of a hob but it is not a unconscientiousness. sent2: if the fact that the blueprint is both not a stare and a Robinson is wrong the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson. sent3: if something is a kind of a Robinson it is a hob and it is not a unconscientiousness. sent4: the fact that the fact that the blancmange is non-supraorbital and it is non-Colombian is not correct is true if that it is a kind of a statuary is not false. sent5: if there is something such that it is a archpriest the blueprint hobs. sent6: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a archpriest and it is genitourinary is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct. sent8: the magnetism is a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a hob. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a archpriest and it is not genitourinary is not right. sent10: something is not a Arafat if the fact that it is not supraorbital and not Colombian does not hold. sent11: something is not a Robinson and not a stare if it wonders blancmange. sent12: the blueprint is a Robinson if the magnetism is not a kind of a Robinson and it does not stare. sent13: something is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary. sent14: something is not a kind of a unconscientiousness if the fact that it is both a unconscientiousness and a hob is incorrect. sent15: the blancmange is a kind of a statuary. sent16: if the blueprint is a unconscientiousness the magnetism is a kind of a hob. sent17: if there exists something such that that it is both not a archpriest and not genitourinary is incorrect the blueprint is a hob. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent17 -> int1: that the blueprint is a kind of a hob is not incorrect.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct.

The fact that it is not an archpriest and is not genitourinary is not correct.

the magnetism is a unconscientiousness if the blueprint is a hob.

the lavatory is not short.

sent1: the muscat is not tensional and it is not a sheepherder. sent2: something that is a Torreya is non-elementary thing that is not a kind of a coulisse. sent3: if something that is not a nitrogenase deprecates homeboy then the lavatory is not a short. sent4: the starch does not wonder nonpareil if the fact that the good deprecates millstone and it does wonder nonpareil does not hold. sent5: if the starch is not a Torreya the hippeastrum is a Torreya. sent6: something is a kind of a short if the fact that it is not elementary and is not a coulisse does not hold. sent7: something is not a sensitizer if the fact that it wonders Merman and does not wonder tailor is not true. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Capella the player is not a macrophage. sent9: the good is not a nitrogenase and does deprecate homeboy if the starch is not a coulisse. sent10: something is a Capella if it does typeset Eichmann. sent11: if something that does not rotate deprecates Wyeth it is not a Torreya. sent12: if a non-elementary thing is not a coulisse it is not a kind of a short. sent13: the good does not wonder nonpareil. sent14: if the starch is not a kind of a coulisse the good deprecates homeboy. sent15: if the muscat is non-tensional thing that is not a sheepherder it does typeset Eichmann. sent16: if something is not a Torreya the fact that it is not elementary and is not a kind of a coulisse is wrong. sent17: that the good does deprecate millstone and it does wonder nonpareil is not correct if there is something such that it is not a sensitizer. sent18: if something is not a macrophage then that it wonders Merman and it does not wonder tailor is wrong.

¬{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lavatory is a short.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lavatory is not short. ; $context$ = sent1: the muscat is not tensional and it is not a sheepherder. sent2: something that is a Torreya is non-elementary thing that is not a kind of a coulisse. sent3: if something that is not a nitrogenase deprecates homeboy then the lavatory is not a short. sent4: the starch does not wonder nonpareil if the fact that the good deprecates millstone and it does wonder nonpareil does not hold. sent5: if the starch is not a Torreya the hippeastrum is a Torreya. sent6: something is a kind of a short if the fact that it is not elementary and is not a coulisse does not hold. sent7: something is not a sensitizer if the fact that it wonders Merman and does not wonder tailor is not true. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a Capella the player is not a macrophage. sent9: the good is not a nitrogenase and does deprecate homeboy if the starch is not a coulisse. sent10: something is a Capella if it does typeset Eichmann. sent11: if something that does not rotate deprecates Wyeth it is not a Torreya. sent12: if a non-elementary thing is not a coulisse it is not a kind of a short. sent13: the good does not wonder nonpareil. sent14: if the starch is not a kind of a coulisse the good deprecates homeboy. sent15: if the muscat is non-tensional thing that is not a sheepherder it does typeset Eichmann. sent16: if something is not a Torreya the fact that it is not elementary and is not a kind of a coulisse is wrong. sent17: that the good does deprecate millstone and it does wonder nonpareil is not correct if there is something such that it is not a sensitizer. sent18: if something is not a macrophage then that it wonders Merman and it does not wonder tailor is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the good does not wonder nonpareil.

the good does not wonder nonpareil.

the good is not a nitrogenase and does deprecate homeboy if the starch is not a coulisse.

the pup deprecates Cleveland.

sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pup does deprecate Cleveland.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pup deprecates Cleveland. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the nominator is not a kind of a cross.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: that either the pup is handless or it wonders scramble or both is false.; sent1 -> int3: the pup does not deprecate Cleveland if that it is handless or wonders scramble or both is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross.

It does not cross if the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of speed.

the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold.

the pup deprecates Cleveland.

sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pup does deprecate Cleveland.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pup deprecates Cleveland. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the nominator is not a kind of a cross.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: that either the pup is handless or it wonders scramble or both is false.; sent1 -> int3: the pup does not deprecate Cleveland if that it is handless or wonders scramble or both is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross.

It doesn't cross if the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of speed.

if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right.

the pup deprecates Cleveland.

sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pup does deprecate Cleveland.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pup deprecates Cleveland. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland. sent2: that something does cross and does wonder scramble if it is not futuristic hold. sent3: the nominator is not a kind of a cross if it is a kind of a speed. sent4: if the fact that the nominator speeds but it does not wonder scramble is incorrect it is not handless. sent5: if that the narrow-body either is not testicular or is non-horticultural or both does not hold the nominator is not futuristic. sent6: if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross. sent7: the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram but it is not a speed does not hold. sent8: the pup is not handless. sent9: if the nominator is not a cross then that the pup is handless and/or it does wonder scramble is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the nominator is not a kind of a cross.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: that either the pup is handless or it wonders scramble or both is false.; sent1 -> int3: the pup does not deprecate Cleveland if that it is handless or wonders scramble or both is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of a speed is wrong then it does not cross.

If the nominator deprecates logogram and is not a kind of speed, then it doesn't cross.

if that either something is handless or it wonders scramble or both is not correct it does not deprecate Cleveland.

that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect.

sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{P} -> ({O} & {N}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent7: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: {N} -> (¬{L} & {M}) sent9: (¬{HL} v ¬{HM}) sent10: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent11: {B} sent12: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent14: ({AA} & {JA}) -> ¬{HM} sent15: ¬{C} -> (¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent16: ¬{HE} sent17: (¬{AN} v {HK}) sent18: ¬{EL} -> ({BO} v ¬{R}) sent19: {J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {H})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wondering Spock does not occur or the deprecating conima does not occur or both is false.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the marveling virility does not occur.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the indiscernibleness occurs.

There is indiscernibleness.

the fact that the retrieval occurs is right.

that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect.

sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{P} -> ({O} & {N}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent7: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: {N} -> (¬{L} & {M}) sent9: (¬{HL} v ¬{HM}) sent10: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent11: {B} sent12: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent14: ({AA} & {JA}) -> ¬{HM} sent15: ¬{C} -> (¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent16: ¬{HE} sent17: (¬{AN} v {HK}) sent18: ¬{EL} -> ({BO} v ¬{R}) sent19: {J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {H})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wondering Spock does not occur or the deprecating conima does not occur or both is false.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the marveling virility does not occur.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the indiscernibleness occurs.

The indiscernibleness happens.

that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens.

that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect.

sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent2: ¬{F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{P} -> ({O} & {N}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent7: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: {N} -> (¬{L} & {M}) sent9: (¬{HL} v ¬{HM}) sent10: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent11: {B} sent12: (¬{C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent14: ({AA} & {JA}) -> ¬{HM} sent15: ¬{C} -> (¬{D} v ¬{E}) sent16: ¬{HE} sent17: (¬{AN} v {HK}) sent18: ¬{EL} -> ({BO} v ¬{R}) sent19: {J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {H})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the wondering Spock does not occur or the deprecating conima does not occur or both is false.

¬(¬{D} v ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur is not correct if the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent2: if the wondering aureole does not occur the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur. sent3: the indiscernibleness occurs. sent4: the non-remediableness brings about that the marveling bonavist and the adaptiveness occurs. sent5: that the marveling virility does not occur is triggered by that both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens. sent6: if the interlinearness does not occur then the Reformation and the joggle occurs. sent7: the wondering aureole does not occur if that both the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness occurs is not correct. sent8: that the interlinearness does not occur but the calcifying happens is true if the adaptiveness happens. sent9: the deprecating harbinger does not occur and/or the shift does not occur. sent10: if that both the non-vulpineness and the forcelessness happens does not hold the forcelessness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the retrieval occurs is right. sent12: if the marveling virility does not occur and the retrieval does not occur then the indiscernibleness does not occur. sent13: if the forcelessness does not occur the fact that the wondering aureole and the non-Anglicanness happens is not correct. sent14: the shifting does not occur if the anoxemicness happens and the theosophicalness occurs. sent15: the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold. sent16: the chase does not occur. sent17: the non-dialectalness or the wondering derring-do or both occurs. sent18: that the maximization does not occur causes that the judgeship happens and/or that the deprecating Lilongwe does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the joggling happens is correct that the vulpineness does not occur but the forcelessness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: both the indiscernibleness and the retrieval happens.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the marveling virility does not occur.; sent15 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the indiscernibleness occurs.

The indiscernibleness occurs.

the wondering Spock does not occur and/or the deprecating conima does not occur if the fact that the marveling virility does not occur hold.

the digoxin does pun.

sent1: if something wonders Cleveland then it is adroit. sent2: if the digoxin is geopolitical then the fact that the mineshaft is not a Bohemia but it is a pun is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a drink but it is not geopolitical is false the fact that it is not a pun hold. sent4: the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold. sent5: if that the backboard is both not distributive and a Bohemia is not right then the mineshaft is geopolitical. sent6: if the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and is not a kind of a foul then it is not eponymous. sent7: if the fact that the postulant is adroit is not false then the fact that the digoxin is a drink and not geopolitical is not right. sent8: if something is not a Shona the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and it is not a foul. sent9: the postulant drinks. sent10: if something does not sunder it wonders Cleveland and is a kind of a benzocaine. sent11: if the backboard is not eponymous then the fact that it is not terrestrial and it does sunder is wrong. sent12: something is not a Shona. sent13: if the postulant is geopolitical that the mineshaft is not a kind of a drink but it does pun does not hold.

{C}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the digoxin is not a pun.

¬{C}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the digoxin does pun. ; $context$ = sent1: if something wonders Cleveland then it is adroit. sent2: if the digoxin is geopolitical then the fact that the mineshaft is not a Bohemia but it is a pun is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a drink but it is not geopolitical is false the fact that it is not a pun hold. sent4: the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold. sent5: if that the backboard is both not distributive and a Bohemia is not right then the mineshaft is geopolitical. sent6: if the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and is not a kind of a foul then it is not eponymous. sent7: if the fact that the postulant is adroit is not false then the fact that the digoxin is a drink and not geopolitical is not right. sent8: if something is not a Shona the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and it is not a foul. sent9: the postulant drinks. sent10: if something does not sunder it wonders Cleveland and is a kind of a benzocaine. sent11: if the backboard is not eponymous then the fact that it is not terrestrial and it does sunder is wrong. sent12: something is not a Shona. sent13: if the postulant is geopolitical that the mineshaft is not a kind of a drink but it does pun does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold.

If the postulant drinks hold, the backboard does not hold.

the postulant drinks.

the digoxin does pun.

sent1: if something wonders Cleveland then it is adroit. sent2: if the digoxin is geopolitical then the fact that the mineshaft is not a Bohemia but it is a pun is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a drink but it is not geopolitical is false the fact that it is not a pun hold. sent4: the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold. sent5: if that the backboard is both not distributive and a Bohemia is not right then the mineshaft is geopolitical. sent6: if the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and is not a kind of a foul then it is not eponymous. sent7: if the fact that the postulant is adroit is not false then the fact that the digoxin is a drink and not geopolitical is not right. sent8: if something is not a Shona the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and it is not a foul. sent9: the postulant drinks. sent10: if something does not sunder it wonders Cleveland and is a kind of a benzocaine. sent11: if the backboard is not eponymous then the fact that it is not terrestrial and it does sunder is wrong. sent12: something is not a Shona. sent13: if the postulant is geopolitical that the mineshaft is not a kind of a drink but it does pun does not hold.

{C}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the digoxin is not a pun.

¬{C}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the digoxin does pun. ; $context$ = sent1: if something wonders Cleveland then it is adroit. sent2: if the digoxin is geopolitical then the fact that the mineshaft is not a Bohemia but it is a pun is not correct. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a drink but it is not geopolitical is false the fact that it is not a pun hold. sent4: the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold. sent5: if that the backboard is both not distributive and a Bohemia is not right then the mineshaft is geopolitical. sent6: if the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and is not a kind of a foul then it is not eponymous. sent7: if the fact that the postulant is adroit is not false then the fact that the digoxin is a drink and not geopolitical is not right. sent8: if something is not a Shona the backboard does not marvel Kaaba and it is not a foul. sent9: the postulant drinks. sent10: if something does not sunder it wonders Cleveland and is a kind of a benzocaine. sent11: if the backboard is not eponymous then the fact that it is not terrestrial and it does sunder is wrong. sent12: something is not a Shona. sent13: if the postulant is geopolitical that the mineshaft is not a kind of a drink but it does pun does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the backboard is not distributive but it is a Bohemia does not hold if that the postulant does drink hold.

If the postulant does drink hold, the backboard is not distributive.

if that the backboard is both not distributive and a Bohemia is not right then the mineshaft is geopolitical.

that the twenty-one occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the marveling kern does not occur yields that the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur. sent2: the bloviating does not occur. sent3: the fact that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness occurs is not true if the footfall occurs. sent4: if that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness happens does not hold then the marveling kern does not occur. sent5: that both the specialism and the presence occurs is incorrect if the psychosurgery does not occur. sent6: if the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur then the twenty-one does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the twenty-one does not occur and the coruscation happens is wrong then the twenty-one occurs. sent8: the Dutch happens but the marveling soymilk does not occur if the presence does not occur. sent9: if the marveling kern happens then the bulging does not occur. sent10: if the bulge happens and the casting does not occur the twenty-one does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the specialism and the presence happens is not true the presence does not occur. sent12: the bulging does not occur. sent13: if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur. sent14: that the marveling soymilk does not occur yields that both the magnetizing and the wariness happens. sent15: the marveling kern happens. sent16: if the habitation does not occur then both the footfall and the desirableness occurs. sent17: if the magnetizing happens then the joylessness does not occur and the philanthropicness occurs. sent18: if the coruscation does not occur then the twenty-one happens but the marveling kern does not occur. sent19: that the joylessness does not occur but the philanthropicness occurs results in that the habitation does not occur. sent20: the noxiousness does not occur and the coruscation does not occur if the footfall occurs. sent21: that not the twenty-one but the coruscation occurs does not hold if the marveling kern does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{A} -> (¬{BF} & ¬{H}) sent2: ¬{GM} sent3: {E} -> ¬({A} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & {O}) sent6: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬(¬{B} & {C}) -> {B} sent8: ¬{O} -> ({N} & ¬{M}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent10: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬({P} & {O}) -> ¬{O} sent12: ¬{AA} sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent15: {A} sent16: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent17: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent18: ¬{C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent19: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent20: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent21: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur.

(¬{BF} & ¬{H})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the twenty-one occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the marveling kern does not occur yields that the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur. sent2: the bloviating does not occur. sent3: the fact that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness occurs is not true if the footfall occurs. sent4: if that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness happens does not hold then the marveling kern does not occur. sent5: that both the specialism and the presence occurs is incorrect if the psychosurgery does not occur. sent6: if the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur then the twenty-one does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the twenty-one does not occur and the coruscation happens is wrong then the twenty-one occurs. sent8: the Dutch happens but the marveling soymilk does not occur if the presence does not occur. sent9: if the marveling kern happens then the bulging does not occur. sent10: if the bulge happens and the casting does not occur the twenty-one does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the specialism and the presence happens is not true the presence does not occur. sent12: the bulging does not occur. sent13: if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur. sent14: that the marveling soymilk does not occur yields that both the magnetizing and the wariness happens. sent15: the marveling kern happens. sent16: if the habitation does not occur then both the footfall and the desirableness occurs. sent17: if the magnetizing happens then the joylessness does not occur and the philanthropicness occurs. sent18: if the coruscation does not occur then the twenty-one happens but the marveling kern does not occur. sent19: that the joylessness does not occur but the philanthropicness occurs results in that the habitation does not occur. sent20: the noxiousness does not occur and the coruscation does not occur if the footfall occurs. sent21: that not the twenty-one but the coruscation occurs does not hold if the marveling kern does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent15 -> int1: the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur.

The bulging doesn't happen if the marveling kern happens.

the marveling kern happens.

that the twenty-one occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the marveling kern does not occur yields that the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur. sent2: the bloviating does not occur. sent3: the fact that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness occurs is not true if the footfall occurs. sent4: if that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness happens does not hold then the marveling kern does not occur. sent5: that both the specialism and the presence occurs is incorrect if the psychosurgery does not occur. sent6: if the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur then the twenty-one does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the twenty-one does not occur and the coruscation happens is wrong then the twenty-one occurs. sent8: the Dutch happens but the marveling soymilk does not occur if the presence does not occur. sent9: if the marveling kern happens then the bulging does not occur. sent10: if the bulge happens and the casting does not occur the twenty-one does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the specialism and the presence happens is not true the presence does not occur. sent12: the bulging does not occur. sent13: if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur. sent14: that the marveling soymilk does not occur yields that both the magnetizing and the wariness happens. sent15: the marveling kern happens. sent16: if the habitation does not occur then both the footfall and the desirableness occurs. sent17: if the magnetizing happens then the joylessness does not occur and the philanthropicness occurs. sent18: if the coruscation does not occur then the twenty-one happens but the marveling kern does not occur. sent19: that the joylessness does not occur but the philanthropicness occurs results in that the habitation does not occur. sent20: the noxiousness does not occur and the coruscation does not occur if the footfall occurs. sent21: that not the twenty-one but the coruscation occurs does not hold if the marveling kern does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{A} -> (¬{BF} & ¬{H}) sent2: ¬{GM} sent3: {E} -> ¬({A} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & {O}) sent6: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬(¬{B} & {C}) -> {B} sent8: ¬{O} -> ({N} & ¬{M}) sent9: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent10: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬({P} & {O}) -> ¬{O} sent12: ¬{AA} sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent15: {A} sent16: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent17: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent18: ¬{C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent19: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent20: {E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent21: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{B} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur.

(¬{BF} & ¬{H})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the twenty-one occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the marveling kern does not occur yields that the deprecating lambskin does not occur and the counterfeitness does not occur. sent2: the bloviating does not occur. sent3: the fact that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness occurs is not true if the footfall occurs. sent4: if that the marveling kern and the non-noxiousness happens does not hold then the marveling kern does not occur. sent5: that both the specialism and the presence occurs is incorrect if the psychosurgery does not occur. sent6: if the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur then the twenty-one does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the twenty-one does not occur and the coruscation happens is wrong then the twenty-one occurs. sent8: the Dutch happens but the marveling soymilk does not occur if the presence does not occur. sent9: if the marveling kern happens then the bulging does not occur. sent10: if the bulge happens and the casting does not occur the twenty-one does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the specialism and the presence happens is not true the presence does not occur. sent12: the bulging does not occur. sent13: if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur. sent14: that the marveling soymilk does not occur yields that both the magnetizing and the wariness happens. sent15: the marveling kern happens. sent16: if the habitation does not occur then both the footfall and the desirableness occurs. sent17: if the magnetizing happens then the joylessness does not occur and the philanthropicness occurs. sent18: if the coruscation does not occur then the twenty-one happens but the marveling kern does not occur. sent19: that the joylessness does not occur but the philanthropicness occurs results in that the habitation does not occur. sent20: the noxiousness does not occur and the coruscation does not occur if the footfall occurs. sent21: that not the twenty-one but the coruscation occurs does not hold if the marveling kern does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent15 -> int1: the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the marveling kern happens the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur.

The bulging does not happen if the marveling kern happens.

if the bulging does not occur and the casting does not occur then the twenty-one does not occur.

the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> {D} sent2: ({DE} & ¬{JH}) sent3: {EF} -> ¬{AM} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: {CM} sent6: ¬(¬{I} v {H}) -> {G} sent7: {EH} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {E} sent10: {BP} sent11: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} v {H}) sent12: {DI} sent13: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{A} sent14: {JJ} sent15: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent16: {A} sent17: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {AC} sent18: {FM} -> {BO} sent19: {E} -> ¬{C} sent20: {FJ} -> {HJ} sent21: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the exhaustion does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the neocorticalness occurs.; sent19 & sent9 -> int2: the suspension does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens.

The neocorticalness happens if the warpath is not incorrect.

that the warpath occurs is true.

the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> {D} sent2: ({DE} & ¬{JH}) sent3: {EF} -> ¬{AM} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: {CM} sent6: ¬(¬{I} v {H}) -> {G} sent7: {EH} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {E} sent10: {BP} sent11: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} v {H}) sent12: {DI} sent13: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{A} sent14: {JJ} sent15: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent16: {A} sent17: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {AC} sent18: {FM} -> {BO} sent19: {E} -> ¬{C} sent20: {FJ} -> {HJ} sent21: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the exhaustion does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the neocorticalness occurs.; sent19 & sent9 -> int2: the suspension does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens.

neocorticalness happens if the warpath is not incorrect.

if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right.

the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> {D} sent2: ({DE} & ¬{JH}) sent3: {EF} -> ¬{AM} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: {CM} sent6: ¬(¬{I} v {H}) -> {G} sent7: {EH} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {E} sent10: {BP} sent11: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} v {H}) sent12: {DI} sent13: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{A} sent14: {JJ} sent15: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent16: {A} sent17: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {AC} sent18: {FM} -> {BO} sent19: {E} -> ¬{C} sent20: {FJ} -> {HJ} sent21: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the exhaustion does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the neocorticalness occurs.; sent19 & sent9 -> int2: the suspension does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens.

The neocorticalness happens if the warpath occurs.

the Thoreauvianness happens.

the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect.

sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> {D} sent2: ({DE} & ¬{JH}) sent3: {EF} -> ¬{AM} sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: {CM} sent6: ¬(¬{I} v {H}) -> {G} sent7: {EH} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {E} sent10: {BP} sent11: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} v {H}) sent12: {DI} sent13: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{A} sent14: {JJ} sent15: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent16: {A} sent17: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {AC} sent18: {FM} -> {BO} sent19: {E} -> ¬{C} sent20: {FJ} -> {HJ} sent21: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D}

PROVED

PROVED

the exhaustion does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exhaustion occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs. sent2: both the bohemianism and the non-cosmicness occurs. sent3: if the fact that the bucolicness occurs hold then the fact that the discount does not occur is right. sent4: that the Thoreauvianness does not occur and the farandole does not occur is brought about by the non-illegalness. sent5: the fact that the deprecating gat occurs is true. sent6: if that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness occurs is not true the illegalness occurs. sent7: the retracting occurs. sent8: if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens. sent9: the Thoreauvianness happens. sent10: the deprecating will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent11: that the non-cardiographicness and/or the cormousness happens does not hold if the bobble does not occur. sent12: the aggressiveness happens. sent13: the warpath does not occur if that both the non-cormousness and the non-cardiographicness occurs is wrong. sent14: the Jordanian occurs. sent15: the fact that not the warpath but the neocorticalness occurs is not true if the suspension occurs. sent16: that the warpath occurs is true. sent17: the long-chainness happens if the fact that the warpath does not occur but the neocorticalness happens is wrong. sent18: that the sit-up happens is caused by that the Eritrean happens. sent19: if the Thoreauvianness happens then the fact that the suspension does not occur is right. sent20: the carcinomatousness happens if the absolute happens. sent21: the exhaustion is prevented by that the warpath does not occur and the neocorticalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: the neocorticalness occurs.; sent19 & sent9 -> int2: the suspension does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the warpath occurs is not incorrect the neocorticalness happens.

The neocorticalness happens if that warpath occurs.

that the neocorticalness but not the suspension occurs causes that the exhaustion occurs.

the putty is not a ROI.

sent1: the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that marvels beneficiation is not true if there exists something such that it wonders Flemish. sent2: if there is something such that it marvels beneficiation that the fixer is not monoclinic but it does deprecate fixer is not true. sent3: the serger is not a ROI. sent4: if the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation does not hold the visualizer is not non-monoclinic. sent5: if the serger does not marvel beneficiation then the fixer does not deprecate fixer. sent6: the serger does not wonder Flemish. sent7: the putty does not deprecate fixer and is not monoclinic. sent8: if the fixer does not deprecate fixer the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent9: the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent10: that there is something such that it does deprecate fixer is not false. sent11: something does wonder Flemish. sent12: the serger is not Austrian. sent13: that the serger does not deprecate fixer hold if the fact that the putty is not monoclinic but it is a ROI is false. sent14: the fixer does not deprecate fixer if that the serger is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that does marvel beneficiation is wrong. sent15: if the fact that the fixer is not a ROI but it marvels beneficiation is incorrect then the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent16: that something is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation is wrong if it does wonder Flemish.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the visualizer is not monoclinic.

¬{B}{is}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the putty is not a ROI. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that marvels beneficiation is not true if there exists something such that it wonders Flemish. sent2: if there is something such that it marvels beneficiation that the fixer is not monoclinic but it does deprecate fixer is not true. sent3: the serger is not a ROI. sent4: if the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation does not hold the visualizer is not non-monoclinic. sent5: if the serger does not marvel beneficiation then the fixer does not deprecate fixer. sent6: the serger does not wonder Flemish. sent7: the putty does not deprecate fixer and is not monoclinic. sent8: if the fixer does not deprecate fixer the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent9: the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent10: that there is something such that it does deprecate fixer is not false. sent11: something does wonder Flemish. sent12: the serger is not Austrian. sent13: that the serger does not deprecate fixer hold if the fact that the putty is not monoclinic but it is a ROI is false. sent14: the fixer does not deprecate fixer if that the serger is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that does marvel beneficiation is wrong. sent15: if the fact that the fixer is not a ROI but it marvels beneficiation is incorrect then the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent16: that something is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation is wrong if it does wonder Flemish. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does wonder Flemish.

It does wonder Flemish.

the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that marvels beneficiation is not true if there exists something such that it wonders Flemish.

the putty is not a ROI.

sent1: the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that marvels beneficiation is not true if there exists something such that it wonders Flemish. sent2: if there is something such that it marvels beneficiation that the fixer is not monoclinic but it does deprecate fixer is not true. sent3: the serger is not a ROI. sent4: if the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation does not hold the visualizer is not non-monoclinic. sent5: if the serger does not marvel beneficiation then the fixer does not deprecate fixer. sent6: the serger does not wonder Flemish. sent7: the putty does not deprecate fixer and is not monoclinic. sent8: if the fixer does not deprecate fixer the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent9: the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent10: that there is something such that it does deprecate fixer is not false. sent11: something does wonder Flemish. sent12: the serger is not Austrian. sent13: that the serger does not deprecate fixer hold if the fact that the putty is not monoclinic but it is a ROI is false. sent14: the fixer does not deprecate fixer if that the serger is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that does marvel beneficiation is wrong. sent15: if the fact that the fixer is not a ROI but it marvels beneficiation is incorrect then the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent16: that something is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation is wrong if it does wonder Flemish.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the visualizer is not monoclinic.

¬{B}{is}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the putty is not a ROI. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that marvels beneficiation is not true if there exists something such that it wonders Flemish. sent2: if there is something such that it marvels beneficiation that the fixer is not monoclinic but it does deprecate fixer is not true. sent3: the serger is not a ROI. sent4: if the fact that the serger is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation does not hold the visualizer is not non-monoclinic. sent5: if the serger does not marvel beneficiation then the fixer does not deprecate fixer. sent6: the serger does not wonder Flemish. sent7: the putty does not deprecate fixer and is not monoclinic. sent8: if the fixer does not deprecate fixer the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent9: the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent10: that there is something such that it does deprecate fixer is not false. sent11: something does wonder Flemish. sent12: the serger is not Austrian. sent13: that the serger does not deprecate fixer hold if the fact that the putty is not monoclinic but it is a ROI is false. sent14: the fixer does not deprecate fixer if that the serger is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that does marvel beneficiation is wrong. sent15: if the fact that the fixer is not a ROI but it marvels beneficiation is incorrect then the putty does not deprecate fixer. sent16: that something is non-monoclinic thing that does not marvel beneficiation is wrong if it does wonder Flemish. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does wonder Flemish.

Something does wonder Flemish.

the fixer does not deprecate fixer if that the serger is a kind of non-monoclinic thing that does marvel beneficiation is wrong.

the boatswain is not puerperal.

sent1: if something does not deprecate antacid and reforms then the boatswain is not puerperal. sent2: if the fact that something is not carvel-built and is not a namesake is not correct then it is carvel-built. sent3: the willet is invitational. sent4: if the leveler is carvel-built then it is continent. sent5: if something is not a kind of a leak that it is non-paralytic thing that is non-puerperal is false. sent6: the tideway is not a winnow. sent7: that something is non-paralytic and a leak is not right if it does not deprecate antacid. sent8: the liege is a kind of non-puerperal thing that is not a kind of a continent if the tideway is carvel-built. sent9: the liege is a kind of a leak if it is a paralytic. sent10: if something is not puerperal and it is not a kind of a continent then it does not deprecate antacid. sent11: the liege is not non-paralytic. sent12: that the tideway is not a reform and deprecates antacid is incorrect if the leveler is a continent. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the liege is not a kind of a paralytic but it does leak is not incorrect is not true then that the drunk-and-disorderly is paralytic is not false. sent14: either the leveler is carvel-built or it is a recessed or both if the woodcut is not a kind of a namesake. sent15: the fact that the tideway is not carvel-built and it is not a namesake is not correct if it is not a kind of a recessed. sent16: if the willet is invitational then that either it is not a namesake or it does not marvel adorability or both is not correct. sent17: if something that deprecates antacid is a reform then that the boatswain is not puerperal is right. sent18: if that the willet is not a namesake and/or it does not marvel adorability is wrong the woodcut is not a namesake. sent19: the tideway does not deprecate antacid and is a kind of a paralytic. sent20: if the liege is a leak then the tideway does not deprecate antacid. sent21: there is something such that it does not deprecate antacid.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the drunk-and-disorderly does not reform.

¬{C}{du}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the boatswain is not puerperal. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not deprecate antacid and reforms then the boatswain is not puerperal. sent2: if the fact that something is not carvel-built and is not a namesake is not correct then it is carvel-built. sent3: the willet is invitational. sent4: if the leveler is carvel-built then it is continent. sent5: if something is not a kind of a leak that it is non-paralytic thing that is non-puerperal is false. sent6: the tideway is not a winnow. sent7: that something is non-paralytic and a leak is not right if it does not deprecate antacid. sent8: the liege is a kind of non-puerperal thing that is not a kind of a continent if the tideway is carvel-built. sent9: the liege is a kind of a leak if it is a paralytic. sent10: if something is not puerperal and it is not a kind of a continent then it does not deprecate antacid. sent11: the liege is not non-paralytic. sent12: that the tideway is not a reform and deprecates antacid is incorrect if the leveler is a continent. sent13: if the fact that the fact that the liege is not a kind of a paralytic but it does leak is not incorrect is not true then that the drunk-and-disorderly is paralytic is not false. sent14: either the leveler is carvel-built or it is a recessed or both if the woodcut is not a kind of a namesake. sent15: the fact that the tideway is not carvel-built and it is not a namesake is not correct if it is not a kind of a recessed. sent16: if the willet is invitational then that either it is not a namesake or it does not marvel adorability or both is not correct. sent17: if something that deprecates antacid is a reform then that the boatswain is not puerperal is right. sent18: if that the willet is not a namesake and/or it does not marvel adorability is wrong the woodcut is not a namesake. sent19: the tideway does not deprecate antacid and is a kind of a paralytic. sent20: if the liege is a leak then the tideway does not deprecate antacid. sent21: there is something such that it does not deprecate antacid. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the liege is a kind of a leak if it is a paralytic.

the liege is a kind of a leak if it is a paralytic.

the liege is not non-paralytic.

the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a Roundhead.

sent1: that the professional is not a Pacific is not false. sent2: if something is a Pacific then it is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead. sent3: the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific. sent4: if that the redwood is not a Roundhead is right then the fact that the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a kind of a Roundhead does not hold.

(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Telugu is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead.

(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a Roundhead. ; $context$ = sent1: that the professional is not a Pacific is not false. sent2: if something is a Pacific then it is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead. sent3: the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific. sent4: if that the redwood is not a Roundhead is right then the fact that the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a kind of a Roundhead does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the redwood is not a Roundhead.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific.

If the professional is not from the Pacific, the redwood is not a kind of Roundhead.

that the professional is not a Pacific is not false.

the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a Roundhead.

sent1: that the professional is not a Pacific is not false. sent2: if something is a Pacific then it is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead. sent3: the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific. sent4: if that the redwood is not a Roundhead is right then the fact that the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a kind of a Roundhead does not hold.

(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Telugu is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead.

(¬{C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a Roundhead. ; $context$ = sent1: that the professional is not a Pacific is not false. sent2: if something is a Pacific then it is not a kind of a placation and is not a Roundhead. sent3: the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific. sent4: if that the redwood is not a Roundhead is right then the fact that the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a kind of a Roundhead does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the redwood is not a Roundhead.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the redwood is not a kind of a Roundhead if the professional is not a Pacific.

If the professional is not from the Pacific, the redwood is not a Roundhead.

if that the redwood is not a Roundhead is right then the fact that the Telugu is not a placation and it is not a kind of a Roundhead does not hold.

the underwear is a dry and it is pleomorphic.

sent1: if the underwear is male it is not non-dry. sent2: the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent3: if the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter and it is not a kind of a male then the fiberboard is not a neglecter. sent4: the underwear is pleomorphic. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does not marvel gendarmerie or is not unpretentious or both is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent7: something does interpose and is a prang if it is not a neglecter. sent8: if the bibliographer is not a celebration that it is non-pleomorphic thing that does typeset hassock does not hold.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fiberboard does interpose and is a prang.

({GG}{et} & {DF}{et})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the underwear is a dry and it is pleomorphic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the underwear is male it is not non-dry. sent2: the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent3: if the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter and it is not a kind of a male then the fiberboard is not a neglecter. sent4: the underwear is pleomorphic. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does not marvel gendarmerie or is not unpretentious or both is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent7: something does interpose and is a prang if it is not a neglecter. sent8: if the bibliographer is not a celebration that it is non-pleomorphic thing that does typeset hassock does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the underwear is a kind of a male.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the underwear is dry.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct.

If the underwear is not a kind of neglecter, it is a kind of male.

the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct.

the underwear is a dry and it is pleomorphic.

sent1: if the underwear is male it is not non-dry. sent2: the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent3: if the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter and it is not a kind of a male then the fiberboard is not a neglecter. sent4: the underwear is pleomorphic. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does not marvel gendarmerie or is not unpretentious or both is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent7: something does interpose and is a prang if it is not a neglecter. sent8: if the bibliographer is not a celebration that it is non-pleomorphic thing that does typeset hassock does not hold.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fiberboard does interpose and is a prang.

({GG}{et} & {DF}{et})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the underwear is a dry and it is pleomorphic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the underwear is male it is not non-dry. sent2: the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent3: if the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter and it is not a kind of a male then the fiberboard is not a neglecter. sent4: the underwear is pleomorphic. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does not marvel gendarmerie or is not unpretentious or both is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent7: something does interpose and is a prang if it is not a neglecter. sent8: if the bibliographer is not a celebration that it is non-pleomorphic thing that does typeset hassock does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the underwear is a kind of a male.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the underwear is dry.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct.

If the underwear is not a kind of neglecter, then it is a kind of male.

if the underwear is male it is not non-dry.

the underwear is a dry and it is pleomorphic.

sent1: if the underwear is male it is not non-dry. sent2: the underwear is a kind of a male if the fact that it is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent3: if the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter and it is not a kind of a male then the fiberboard is not a neglecter. sent4: the underwear is pleomorphic. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does not marvel gendarmerie or is not unpretentious or both is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the underwear is not a kind of a neglecter is correct. sent7: something does interpose and is a prang if it is not a neglecter. sent8: if the bibliographer is not a celebration that it is non-pleomorphic thing that does typeset hassock does not hold.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fiberboard does interpose and is a prang.

({GG}{et} & {DF}{et})