Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the deprecating caper does not occur.

sent1: that the non-commonness and the non-prismaticness occurs results in that the chasing happens. sent2: the anionicness happens. sent3: if the dependableness does not occur then the parturientness but not the totipotentness occurs. sent4: the vibrionicness does not occur if the fact that both the vibrionicness and the glugging occurs is not true. sent5: if the strut does not occur and the measurement does not occur that the vibrionicness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the resurvey occurs. sent7: the typeset neuroepithelium does not occur but the hurl occurs. sent8: the relation does not occur if both the marveling homicide and the admiralty happens. sent9: the fact that the heliograph does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: if that the commentating occurs and the deprecating Cenozoic does not occur is false then the typeset neuroepithelium does not occur. sent11: if the vibrionicness happens and the hurling happens the deprecating caper does not occur. sent12: the strut does not occur and the measurement does not occur. sent13: the piscatorialness is prevented by that the availableness happens and the wondering disquieting happens. sent14: if the totipotentness does not occur then that the commentating but not the deprecating Cenozoic happens is not right.

¬{C}

sent1: (¬{IP} & ¬{JE}) -> {JG} sent2: {EC} sent3: ¬{J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬({B} & {E}) -> ¬{B} sent5: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: {FQ} sent7: (¬{D} & {A}) sent8: ({BE} & {IL}) -> ¬{HJ} sent9: ¬{DU} sent10: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{D} sent11: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: ({JH} & {BR}) -> ¬{GB} sent14: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G})

PROVED

PROVED

the deprecating caper happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the deprecating caper does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-commonness and the non-prismaticness occurs results in that the chasing happens. sent2: the anionicness happens. sent3: if the dependableness does not occur then the parturientness but not the totipotentness occurs. sent4: the vibrionicness does not occur if the fact that both the vibrionicness and the glugging occurs is not true. sent5: if the strut does not occur and the measurement does not occur that the vibrionicness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the resurvey occurs. sent7: the typeset neuroepithelium does not occur but the hurl occurs. sent8: the relation does not occur if both the marveling homicide and the admiralty happens. sent9: the fact that the heliograph does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: if that the commentating occurs and the deprecating Cenozoic does not occur is false then the typeset neuroepithelium does not occur. sent11: if the vibrionicness happens and the hurling happens the deprecating caper does not occur. sent12: the strut does not occur and the measurement does not occur. sent13: the piscatorialness is prevented by that the availableness happens and the wondering disquieting happens. sent14: if the totipotentness does not occur then that the commentating but not the deprecating Cenozoic happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent12 -> int1: the vibrionicness occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the hurl happens is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the vibrionicness happens and the hurl occurs.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the strut does not occur and the measurement does not occur that the vibrionicness occurs is not wrong.

The vibrionicness is not wrong if the measurement doesn't occur.

if the vibrionicness happens and the hurling happens the deprecating caper does not occur.

the abrasion is presocratic.

sent1: the fact that the abrasion is not a aril but it is a mastoidale is incorrect. sent2: if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct. sent3: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale does not hold. sent4: something plunders and is presocratic if it does not typeset Kandinsky. sent5: the ohmage is not a kind of a mineral if the fact that the fact that it is not lentic and it is a mineral is not false does not hold. sent6: the modillion is not a preserver if there is something such that it is not a mineral. sent7: the abrasion does plunder. sent8: something does deprecate Starr and is not a mineral. sent9: that that the ohmage is not lentic and is not non-mineral is not false is incorrect. sent10: if the Algonkian is costive the fact that it is both not a lifeblood and not a velum is not true. sent11: the kentan is not a aril if that the abrasion plunders but it is not a aril is wrong. sent12: if the modillion is a kind of a preserver that typesets Kandinsky the abrasion does not typesets Kandinsky. sent13: if the abrasion plunders then that it is not a aril and is a mastoidale does not hold. sent14: the abrasion is not presocratic if the fact that it is not a aril and it is not a kind of a mastoidale is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the insectifuge does not plunder and is not a preserver is incorrect if the rhizopod does not deprecate Chabad. sent16: if something does not deprecate Chabad it does typeset Kandinsky and it is presocratic. sent17: if the modillion is presocratic then that the abrasion is presocratic is right. sent18: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale is not right if it plunders. sent19: if that the abrasion is both not a frilled and not presocratic is not right then it is not woody.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬(¬{H}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: ¬(¬{H}{c} & {F}{c}) sent10: {DJ}{eq} -> ¬(¬{FU}{eq} & ¬{T}{eq}) sent11: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{fi} sent12: ({E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{e} -> ¬(¬{A}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent17: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent18: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent19: ¬(¬{AT}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{JA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the abrasion is presocratic.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the abrasion is presocratic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the abrasion is not a aril but it is a mastoidale is incorrect. sent2: if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct. sent3: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale does not hold. sent4: something plunders and is presocratic if it does not typeset Kandinsky. sent5: the ohmage is not a kind of a mineral if the fact that the fact that it is not lentic and it is a mineral is not false does not hold. sent6: the modillion is not a preserver if there is something such that it is not a mineral. sent7: the abrasion does plunder. sent8: something does deprecate Starr and is not a mineral. sent9: that that the ohmage is not lentic and is not non-mineral is not false is incorrect. sent10: if the Algonkian is costive the fact that it is both not a lifeblood and not a velum is not true. sent11: the kentan is not a aril if that the abrasion plunders but it is not a aril is wrong. sent12: if the modillion is a kind of a preserver that typesets Kandinsky the abrasion does not typesets Kandinsky. sent13: if the abrasion plunders then that it is not a aril and is a mastoidale does not hold. sent14: the abrasion is not presocratic if the fact that it is not a aril and it is not a kind of a mastoidale is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the insectifuge does not plunder and is not a preserver is incorrect if the rhizopod does not deprecate Chabad. sent16: if something does not deprecate Chabad it does typeset Kandinsky and it is presocratic. sent17: if the modillion is presocratic then that the abrasion is presocratic is right. sent18: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale is not right if it plunders. sent19: if that the abrasion is both not a frilled and not presocratic is not right then it is not woody. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: that the abrasion is not a aril and it is not a mastoidale is incorrect.; int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct.

The fact that it is not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct.

the abrasion does plunder.

the abrasion is presocratic.

sent1: the fact that the abrasion is not a aril but it is a mastoidale is incorrect. sent2: if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct. sent3: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale does not hold. sent4: something plunders and is presocratic if it does not typeset Kandinsky. sent5: the ohmage is not a kind of a mineral if the fact that the fact that it is not lentic and it is a mineral is not false does not hold. sent6: the modillion is not a preserver if there is something such that it is not a mineral. sent7: the abrasion does plunder. sent8: something does deprecate Starr and is not a mineral. sent9: that that the ohmage is not lentic and is not non-mineral is not false is incorrect. sent10: if the Algonkian is costive the fact that it is both not a lifeblood and not a velum is not true. sent11: the kentan is not a aril if that the abrasion plunders but it is not a aril is wrong. sent12: if the modillion is a kind of a preserver that typesets Kandinsky the abrasion does not typesets Kandinsky. sent13: if the abrasion plunders then that it is not a aril and is a mastoidale does not hold. sent14: the abrasion is not presocratic if the fact that it is not a aril and it is not a kind of a mastoidale is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the insectifuge does not plunder and is not a preserver is incorrect if the rhizopod does not deprecate Chabad. sent16: if something does not deprecate Chabad it does typeset Kandinsky and it is presocratic. sent17: if the modillion is presocratic then that the abrasion is presocratic is right. sent18: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale is not right if it plunders. sent19: if that the abrasion is both not a frilled and not presocratic is not right then it is not woody.

{B}{a}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent5: ¬(¬{H}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (Ex): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: ¬(¬{H}{c} & {F}{c}) sent10: {DJ}{eq} -> ¬(¬{FU}{eq} & ¬{T}{eq}) sent11: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{fi} sent12: ({E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent13: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{e} -> ¬(¬{A}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent17: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent18: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent19: ¬(¬{AT}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{JA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the abrasion is presocratic.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the abrasion is presocratic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the abrasion is not a aril but it is a mastoidale is incorrect. sent2: if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct. sent3: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale does not hold. sent4: something plunders and is presocratic if it does not typeset Kandinsky. sent5: the ohmage is not a kind of a mineral if the fact that the fact that it is not lentic and it is a mineral is not false does not hold. sent6: the modillion is not a preserver if there is something such that it is not a mineral. sent7: the abrasion does plunder. sent8: something does deprecate Starr and is not a mineral. sent9: that that the ohmage is not lentic and is not non-mineral is not false is incorrect. sent10: if the Algonkian is costive the fact that it is both not a lifeblood and not a velum is not true. sent11: the kentan is not a aril if that the abrasion plunders but it is not a aril is wrong. sent12: if the modillion is a kind of a preserver that typesets Kandinsky the abrasion does not typesets Kandinsky. sent13: if the abrasion plunders then that it is not a aril and is a mastoidale does not hold. sent14: the abrasion is not presocratic if the fact that it is not a aril and it is not a kind of a mastoidale is incorrect. sent15: the fact that the insectifuge does not plunder and is not a preserver is incorrect if the rhizopod does not deprecate Chabad. sent16: if something does not deprecate Chabad it does typeset Kandinsky and it is presocratic. sent17: if the modillion is presocratic then that the abrasion is presocratic is right. sent18: that the abrasion is a aril but it is not a mastoidale is not right if it plunders. sent19: if that the abrasion is both not a frilled and not presocratic is not right then it is not woody. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: that the abrasion is not a aril and it is not a mastoidale is incorrect.; int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the abrasion plunders the fact that it is both not a aril and not a mastoidale is not correct.

The fact that it is not a aril and not a mastoidale is incorrect.

the abrasion is not presocratic if the fact that it is not a aril and it is not a kind of a mastoidale is incorrect.

the granule is impolitic.

sent1: something that is not a knacker is not impolitic. sent2: the granule is not a kind of a knacker if it is not a 1770s. sent3: if the fact that the dryer does not wonder rowing is right then it is not a kind of a 1770s. sent4: if the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic then the razorback does wonder Coptic. sent5: that the bombshell does not marvel philanthropist if the fact that the bombshell is not a kind of a mem and is perinatal is not right is right. sent6: the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect. sent7: the haft is deficient if it does escort. sent8: if the haft is a kind of deficient an axiom then it is not a kind of a Trojan. sent9: something is not a knacker if that it is both not perinatal and a 1770s is not right. sent10: the haft is an escort if it is glabellar. sent11: if something does wonder Coptic then it is a knacker. sent12: something is not politic if it is a kind of a knacker. sent13: the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic if the haft is not a kind of a Trojan. sent14: that the granule is both not a knacker and macrobiotics does not hold. sent15: the granule does not chomp. sent16: if the fact that the granule does not compose but it is a 1770s is not right that it is not cross-sentential is not wrong. sent17: something does not marvel tumult if the fact that it is not unquiet and it is Portuguese does not hold. sent18: if something is not a 1770s then that it is not a knacker is right. sent19: that the backplate is a kind of non-Spanish thing that deprecates craton is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the razorback is a knacker is right then the granule is a kind of a knacker.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬{DQ}{jb} -> ¬{AB}{jb} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{IQ}{hc} & {AA}{hc}) -> ¬{FF}{hc} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {J}{c} -> {F}{c} sent8: ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: {K}{c} -> {J}{c} sent11: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent13: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {JG}{aa}) sent15: ¬{I}{aa} sent16: ¬(¬{DD}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{CP}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{GP}x & {IB}x) -> ¬{CU}x sent18: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}x sent19: ¬(¬{ID}{j} & {BH}{j}) sent20: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the granule is impolitic.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the granule is impolitic. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a knacker is not impolitic. sent2: the granule is not a kind of a knacker if it is not a 1770s. sent3: if the fact that the dryer does not wonder rowing is right then it is not a kind of a 1770s. sent4: if the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic then the razorback does wonder Coptic. sent5: that the bombshell does not marvel philanthropist if the fact that the bombshell is not a kind of a mem and is perinatal is not right is right. sent6: the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect. sent7: the haft is deficient if it does escort. sent8: if the haft is a kind of deficient an axiom then it is not a kind of a Trojan. sent9: something is not a knacker if that it is both not perinatal and a 1770s is not right. sent10: the haft is an escort if it is glabellar. sent11: if something does wonder Coptic then it is a knacker. sent12: something is not politic if it is a kind of a knacker. sent13: the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic if the haft is not a kind of a Trojan. sent14: that the granule is both not a knacker and macrobiotics does not hold. sent15: the granule does not chomp. sent16: if the fact that the granule does not compose but it is a 1770s is not right that it is not cross-sentential is not wrong. sent17: something does not marvel tumult if the fact that it is not unquiet and it is Portuguese does not hold. sent18: if something is not a 1770s then that it is not a knacker is right. sent19: that the backplate is a kind of non-Spanish thing that deprecates craton is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the razorback is a knacker is right then the granule is a kind of a knacker. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that the granule is not perinatal but it is a kind of a 1770s is not true.; sent9 -> int2: if that the granule is not perinatal but it is a 1770s does not hold then it is not a knacker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the granule is not a knacker.; sent1 -> int4: if the granule is not a knacker then it is not impolitic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that there is a 1770s.

something is not a knacker if that it is both not perinatal and a 1770s is not right.

the granule is impolitic.

sent1: something that is not a knacker is not impolitic. sent2: the granule is not a kind of a knacker if it is not a 1770s. sent3: if the fact that the dryer does not wonder rowing is right then it is not a kind of a 1770s. sent4: if the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic then the razorback does wonder Coptic. sent5: that the bombshell does not marvel philanthropist if the fact that the bombshell is not a kind of a mem and is perinatal is not right is right. sent6: the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect. sent7: the haft is deficient if it does escort. sent8: if the haft is a kind of deficient an axiom then it is not a kind of a Trojan. sent9: something is not a knacker if that it is both not perinatal and a 1770s is not right. sent10: the haft is an escort if it is glabellar. sent11: if something does wonder Coptic then it is a knacker. sent12: something is not politic if it is a kind of a knacker. sent13: the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic if the haft is not a kind of a Trojan. sent14: that the granule is both not a knacker and macrobiotics does not hold. sent15: the granule does not chomp. sent16: if the fact that the granule does not compose but it is a 1770s is not right that it is not cross-sentential is not wrong. sent17: something does not marvel tumult if the fact that it is not unquiet and it is Portuguese does not hold. sent18: if something is not a 1770s then that it is not a knacker is right. sent19: that the backplate is a kind of non-Spanish thing that deprecates craton is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the razorback is a knacker is right then the granule is a kind of a knacker.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬{DQ}{jb} -> ¬{AB}{jb} sent4: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{IQ}{hc} & {AA}{hc}) -> ¬{FF}{hc} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {J}{c} -> {F}{c} sent8: ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: {K}{c} -> {J}{c} sent11: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent13: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {JG}{aa}) sent15: ¬{I}{aa} sent16: ¬(¬{DD}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{CP}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{GP}x & {IB}x) -> ¬{CU}x sent18: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{A}x sent19: ¬(¬{ID}{j} & {BH}{j}) sent20: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the granule is impolitic.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the granule is impolitic. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a knacker is not impolitic. sent2: the granule is not a kind of a knacker if it is not a 1770s. sent3: if the fact that the dryer does not wonder rowing is right then it is not a kind of a 1770s. sent4: if the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic then the razorback does wonder Coptic. sent5: that the bombshell does not marvel philanthropist if the fact that the bombshell is not a kind of a mem and is perinatal is not right is right. sent6: the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect. sent7: the haft is deficient if it does escort. sent8: if the haft is a kind of deficient an axiom then it is not a kind of a Trojan. sent9: something is not a knacker if that it is both not perinatal and a 1770s is not right. sent10: the haft is an escort if it is glabellar. sent11: if something does wonder Coptic then it is a knacker. sent12: something is not politic if it is a kind of a knacker. sent13: the rosefish is not a bass and it does not wonder Coptic if the haft is not a kind of a Trojan. sent14: that the granule is both not a knacker and macrobiotics does not hold. sent15: the granule does not chomp. sent16: if the fact that the granule does not compose but it is a 1770s is not right that it is not cross-sentential is not wrong. sent17: something does not marvel tumult if the fact that it is not unquiet and it is Portuguese does not hold. sent18: if something is not a 1770s then that it is not a knacker is right. sent19: that the backplate is a kind of non-Spanish thing that deprecates craton is not correct. sent20: if the fact that the razorback is a knacker is right then the granule is a kind of a knacker. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that the granule is not perinatal but it is a kind of a 1770s is not true.; sent9 -> int2: if that the granule is not perinatal but it is a 1770s does not hold then it is not a knacker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the granule is not a knacker.; sent1 -> int4: if the granule is not a knacker then it is not impolitic.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is nothing that is not perinatal and is a 1770s is not incorrect.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that there is nothing else besides a 1770s.

something that is not a knacker is not impolitic.

the quinacrine is a run-through.

sent1: something is not a shimmy and/or does lapidify if it does deprecate burden. sent2: the image is not a run-through. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not correct then the quinacrine is not a run-through. sent4: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it lapidifies. sent5: that the image is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not true. sent6: the fact that everything is unfree is correct. sent7: the fact that the quinacrine is not a run-through but it deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it does shimmy. sent8: there is something such that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden. sent9: there is something such that it does lapidify. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not a run-through and it deprecates burden is wrong the image is not a shimmy. sent11: something is a run-through if it lapidifies. sent12: the quinacrine is not a run-through if there is something such that it is a shimmy. sent13: that the image does shimmy and does deprecate burden is not right if there is something such that it does lapidify. sent14: the image is not a daze. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a scripture but an irreverence is false. sent17: the fact that the image is both not a shimmy and a run-through is incorrect if that there is something such that it deprecates burden is not false. sent18: the image is not a kind of a run-through if there exists something such that the fact that it does not deprecate burden and is a shimmy is not right. sent19: the fact that the quinacrine does not deprecate burden and is a run-through does not hold.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x v {A}x) sent2: ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): {E}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent14: ¬{EH}{a} sent15: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{HI}x & {HA}x) sent17: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the quinacrine is a run-through.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the quinacrine is a run-through. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a shimmy and/or does lapidify if it does deprecate burden. sent2: the image is not a run-through. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not correct then the quinacrine is not a run-through. sent4: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it lapidifies. sent5: that the image is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not true. sent6: the fact that everything is unfree is correct. sent7: the fact that the quinacrine is not a run-through but it deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it does shimmy. sent8: there is something such that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden. sent9: there is something such that it does lapidify. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not a run-through and it deprecates burden is wrong the image is not a shimmy. sent11: something is a run-through if it lapidifies. sent12: the quinacrine is not a run-through if there is something such that it is a shimmy. sent13: that the image does shimmy and does deprecate burden is not right if there is something such that it does lapidify. sent14: the image is not a daze. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a scripture but an irreverence is false. sent17: the fact that the image is both not a shimmy and a run-through is incorrect if that there is something such that it deprecates burden is not false. sent18: the image is not a kind of a run-through if there exists something such that the fact that it does not deprecate burden and is a shimmy is not right. sent19: the fact that the quinacrine does not deprecate burden and is a run-through does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden is wrong.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does lapidify.

There is something that does lapidify.

the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it lapidifies.

the quinacrine is a run-through.

sent1: something is not a shimmy and/or does lapidify if it does deprecate burden. sent2: the image is not a run-through. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not correct then the quinacrine is not a run-through. sent4: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it lapidifies. sent5: that the image is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not true. sent6: the fact that everything is unfree is correct. sent7: the fact that the quinacrine is not a run-through but it deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it does shimmy. sent8: there is something such that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden. sent9: there is something such that it does lapidify. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not a run-through and it deprecates burden is wrong the image is not a shimmy. sent11: something is a run-through if it lapidifies. sent12: the quinacrine is not a run-through if there is something such that it is a shimmy. sent13: that the image does shimmy and does deprecate burden is not right if there is something such that it does lapidify. sent14: the image is not a daze. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a scripture but an irreverence is false. sent17: the fact that the image is both not a shimmy and a run-through is incorrect if that there is something such that it deprecates burden is not false. sent18: the image is not a kind of a run-through if there exists something such that the fact that it does not deprecate burden and is a shimmy is not right. sent19: the fact that the quinacrine does not deprecate burden and is a run-through does not hold.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x v {A}x) sent2: ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): {E}x sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent14: ¬{EH}{a} sent15: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{HI}x & {HA}x) sent17: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {D}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the quinacrine is a run-through.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the quinacrine is a run-through. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a shimmy and/or does lapidify if it does deprecate burden. sent2: the image is not a run-through. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not correct then the quinacrine is not a run-through. sent4: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it lapidifies. sent5: that the image is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not true. sent6: the fact that everything is unfree is correct. sent7: the fact that the quinacrine is not a run-through but it deprecates burden is not true if there is something such that it does shimmy. sent8: there is something such that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden. sent9: there is something such that it does lapidify. sent10: if there is something such that that it is not a run-through and it deprecates burden is wrong the image is not a shimmy. sent11: something is a run-through if it lapidifies. sent12: the quinacrine is not a run-through if there is something such that it is a shimmy. sent13: that the image does shimmy and does deprecate burden is not right if there is something such that it does lapidify. sent14: the image is not a daze. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a scripture but an irreverence is false. sent17: the fact that the image is both not a shimmy and a run-through is incorrect if that there is something such that it deprecates burden is not false. sent18: the image is not a kind of a run-through if there exists something such that the fact that it does not deprecate burden and is a shimmy is not right. sent19: the fact that the quinacrine does not deprecate burden and is a run-through does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the image is not a shimmy and deprecates burden does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it does not shimmy and it deprecates burden is wrong.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does lapidify.

It does lapidify.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a shimmy and it deprecates burden is not correct then the quinacrine is not a run-through.

the fact that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous does not hold.

sent1: the dronabinol is a kind of a surprise. sent2: the midazolam is not a surprise if it is an offer that is not calcicolous. sent3: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous. sent4: something does not offer but it typesets sericulture if it does not foal. sent5: if something is non-African the fact that it is both not a angwantibo and a mean is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is non-celiac thing that is fungal is not correct if it does marvel thortveitite. sent7: if the fact that something is not a kind of a angwantibo and is a mean is not right then it is not isentropic. sent8: the midazolam surprises. sent9: if the dronabinol is calcicolous the midazolam typesets sericulture. sent10: the fact that the dronabinol does surprise but it is not a postgraduate is not right. sent11: if the midazolam is not a kind of a longer then the fact that the dronabinol is a foal and noncrystalline is false. sent12: the midazolam does typeset sericulture if the dronabinol is an offer. sent13: the dronabinol surprises if the grogram surprises. sent14: something does marvel thortveitite if it is a kind of a wormcast. sent15: the exchange is not African. sent16: the abbacy is not a foal if there is something such that that it is a foal and noncrystalline is not correct. sent17: the grogram does surprise and it is noncrystalline if it is not a longer. sent18: the midazolam is a kind of an offer. sent19: that the grogram is a Spode and is a wormcast if the exchange is not isentropic is not false. sent20: the fact that the midazolam is not a longer hold if there exists something such that that it is not celiac and it is fungal is not right. sent21: the dronabinol typesets sericulture if the midazolam offers.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dronabinol is a surprise but it is non-calcicolous.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the dronabinol is a kind of a surprise. sent2: the midazolam is not a surprise if it is an offer that is not calcicolous. sent3: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous. sent4: something does not offer but it typesets sericulture if it does not foal. sent5: if something is non-African the fact that it is both not a angwantibo and a mean is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is non-celiac thing that is fungal is not correct if it does marvel thortveitite. sent7: if the fact that something is not a kind of a angwantibo and is a mean is not right then it is not isentropic. sent8: the midazolam surprises. sent9: if the dronabinol is calcicolous the midazolam typesets sericulture. sent10: the fact that the dronabinol does surprise but it is not a postgraduate is not right. sent11: if the midazolam is not a kind of a longer then the fact that the dronabinol is a foal and noncrystalline is false. sent12: the midazolam does typeset sericulture if the dronabinol is an offer. sent13: the dronabinol surprises if the grogram surprises. sent14: something does marvel thortveitite if it is a kind of a wormcast. sent15: the exchange is not African. sent16: the abbacy is not a foal if there is something such that that it is a foal and noncrystalline is not correct. sent17: the grogram does surprise and it is noncrystalline if it is not a longer. sent18: the midazolam is a kind of an offer. sent19: that the grogram is a Spode and is a wormcast if the exchange is not isentropic is not false. sent20: the fact that the midazolam is not a longer hold if there exists something such that that it is not celiac and it is fungal is not right. sent21: the dronabinol typesets sericulture if the midazolam offers. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture.; sent21 & sent18 -> int2: the dronabinol does typeset sericulture.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous.

The dronabinol does not typeset culture if it is a surprise.

the dronabinol typesets sericulture if the midazolam offers.

the fact that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous does not hold.

sent1: the dronabinol is a kind of a surprise. sent2: the midazolam is not a surprise if it is an offer that is not calcicolous. sent3: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous. sent4: something does not offer but it typesets sericulture if it does not foal. sent5: if something is non-African the fact that it is both not a angwantibo and a mean is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is non-celiac thing that is fungal is not correct if it does marvel thortveitite. sent7: if the fact that something is not a kind of a angwantibo and is a mean is not right then it is not isentropic. sent8: the midazolam surprises. sent9: if the dronabinol is calcicolous the midazolam typesets sericulture. sent10: the fact that the dronabinol does surprise but it is not a postgraduate is not right. sent11: if the midazolam is not a kind of a longer then the fact that the dronabinol is a foal and noncrystalline is false. sent12: the midazolam does typeset sericulture if the dronabinol is an offer. sent13: the dronabinol surprises if the grogram surprises. sent14: something does marvel thortveitite if it is a kind of a wormcast. sent15: the exchange is not African. sent16: the abbacy is not a foal if there is something such that that it is a foal and noncrystalline is not correct. sent17: the grogram does surprise and it is noncrystalline if it is not a longer. sent18: the midazolam is a kind of an offer. sent19: that the grogram is a Spode and is a wormcast if the exchange is not isentropic is not false. sent20: the fact that the midazolam is not a longer hold if there exists something such that that it is not celiac and it is fungal is not right. sent21: the dronabinol typesets sericulture if the midazolam offers.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dronabinol is a surprise but it is non-calcicolous.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the dronabinol is a kind of a surprise. sent2: the midazolam is not a surprise if it is an offer that is not calcicolous. sent3: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous. sent4: something does not offer but it typesets sericulture if it does not foal. sent5: if something is non-African the fact that it is both not a angwantibo and a mean is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is non-celiac thing that is fungal is not correct if it does marvel thortveitite. sent7: if the fact that something is not a kind of a angwantibo and is a mean is not right then it is not isentropic. sent8: the midazolam surprises. sent9: if the dronabinol is calcicolous the midazolam typesets sericulture. sent10: the fact that the dronabinol does surprise but it is not a postgraduate is not right. sent11: if the midazolam is not a kind of a longer then the fact that the dronabinol is a foal and noncrystalline is false. sent12: the midazolam does typeset sericulture if the dronabinol is an offer. sent13: the dronabinol surprises if the grogram surprises. sent14: something does marvel thortveitite if it is a kind of a wormcast. sent15: the exchange is not African. sent16: the abbacy is not a foal if there is something such that that it is a foal and noncrystalline is not correct. sent17: the grogram does surprise and it is noncrystalline if it is not a longer. sent18: the midazolam is a kind of an offer. sent19: that the grogram is a Spode and is a wormcast if the exchange is not isentropic is not false. sent20: the fact that the midazolam is not a longer hold if there exists something such that that it is not celiac and it is fungal is not right. sent21: the dronabinol typesets sericulture if the midazolam offers. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dronabinol surprises but it is not calcicolous.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture.; sent21 & sent18 -> int2: the dronabinol does typeset sericulture.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise and it is not calcicolous.

The dronabinol does not typeset sericulture if it is a surprise.

the midazolam is a kind of an offer.

the accessionalness does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the profaneness does not occur hold. sent2: if the deprecating overpass happens then the accessionalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the structuralness and the non-accessionalness happens does not hold if that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is true. sent4: that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is brought about by that the deprecating doubletree does not occur or the improbableness happens or both. sent5: the marveling pratincole does not occur. sent6: if the deprecating shantytown happens that the structuralness but not the deprecating overpass occurs hold.

¬{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the accessionalness occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the accessionalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the profaneness does not occur hold. sent2: if the deprecating overpass happens then the accessionalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that both the structuralness and the non-accessionalness happens does not hold if that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is true. sent4: that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is brought about by that the deprecating doubletree does not occur or the improbableness happens or both. sent5: the marveling pratincole does not occur. sent6: if the deprecating shantytown happens that the structuralness but not the deprecating overpass occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that both the structuralness and the non-accessionalness happens does not hold if that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is true.

the fact that both the structuralness and the non-accessionalness happens does not hold if that the deprecating shantytown does not occur is true.

the fact that the profaneness does not occur hold.

there is something such that it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret.

sent1: if the floret is a subbase then it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. sent2: the anticyclone does wonder Chekhov. sent3: something is not a subbase and it does not wonder Chekhov. sent4: the floret is not a Phylloporus and is not noncausative. sent5: something is purgatorial and does not deprecate floret. sent6: the floret wonders Chekhov and/or is not bibliomaniacal. sent7: if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase. sent8: if the floret is bidirectional then the fact that it does not typeset anticyclone is not wrong. sent9: the triplet is a barrister if it wonders Chekhov or it does not wonder Binet or both. sent10: there exists something such that it does not deprecate floret. sent11: the floret is womanly and/or it is a heel. sent12: the floret is not purgatorial.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {AA}{ao} sent3: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{AA}x) sent4: (¬{JJ}{a} & ¬{FD}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: {FJ}{a} -> ¬{CE}{a} sent9: ({AA}{gl} v ¬{DG}{gl}) -> {JG}{gl} sent10: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent11: ({IT}{a} v {JD}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. ; $context$ = sent1: if the floret is a subbase then it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. sent2: the anticyclone does wonder Chekhov. sent3: something is not a subbase and it does not wonder Chekhov. sent4: the floret is not a Phylloporus and is not noncausative. sent5: something is purgatorial and does not deprecate floret. sent6: the floret wonders Chekhov and/or is not bibliomaniacal. sent7: if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase. sent8: if the floret is bidirectional then the fact that it does not typeset anticyclone is not wrong. sent9: the triplet is a barrister if it wonders Chekhov or it does not wonder Binet or both. sent10: there exists something such that it does not deprecate floret. sent11: the floret is womanly and/or it is a heel. sent12: the floret is not purgatorial. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the floret is a subbase.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the floret is not purgatorial and does not deprecate floret.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase.

If the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal, then it is a sub base.

the floret wonders Chekhov and/or is not bibliomaniacal.

there is something such that it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret.

sent1: if the floret is a subbase then it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. sent2: the anticyclone does wonder Chekhov. sent3: something is not a subbase and it does not wonder Chekhov. sent4: the floret is not a Phylloporus and is not noncausative. sent5: something is purgatorial and does not deprecate floret. sent6: the floret wonders Chekhov and/or is not bibliomaniacal. sent7: if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase. sent8: if the floret is bidirectional then the fact that it does not typeset anticyclone is not wrong. sent9: the triplet is a barrister if it wonders Chekhov or it does not wonder Binet or both. sent10: there exists something such that it does not deprecate floret. sent11: the floret is womanly and/or it is a heel. sent12: the floret is not purgatorial.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: {AA}{ao} sent3: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{AA}x) sent4: (¬{JJ}{a} & ¬{FD}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent6: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent8: {FJ}{a} -> ¬{CE}{a} sent9: ({AA}{gl} v ¬{DG}{gl}) -> {JG}{gl} sent10: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent11: ({IT}{a} v {JD}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. ; $context$ = sent1: if the floret is a subbase then it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret. sent2: the anticyclone does wonder Chekhov. sent3: something is not a subbase and it does not wonder Chekhov. sent4: the floret is not a Phylloporus and is not noncausative. sent5: something is purgatorial and does not deprecate floret. sent6: the floret wonders Chekhov and/or is not bibliomaniacal. sent7: if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase. sent8: if the floret is bidirectional then the fact that it does not typeset anticyclone is not wrong. sent9: the triplet is a barrister if it wonders Chekhov or it does not wonder Binet or both. sent10: there exists something such that it does not deprecate floret. sent11: the floret is womanly and/or it is a heel. sent12: the floret is not purgatorial. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the floret is a subbase.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the floret is not purgatorial and does not deprecate floret.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if either the floret does wonder Chekhov or it is not bibliomaniacal or both then it is a subbase.

If it is not bibliomaniacal or if it is not wonder Chekhov then it is a sub base.

if the floret is a subbase then it is not purgatorial and it does not deprecate floret.

that the fingertip is not undramatic is right.

sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fingertip is not undramatic is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the triode is not ecdemic.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the fingertip is a sexist and not ecdemic.; sent5 -> int3: if the fingertip is a sexist that is not ecdemic it is undramatic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism.

There is something that is mediatory but not predestinarianism.

if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic.

that the fingertip is not undramatic is right.

sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fingertip is not undramatic is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the triode is not ecdemic.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the fingertip is a sexist and not ecdemic.; sent5 -> int3: if the fingertip is a sexist that is not ecdemic it is undramatic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism.

It is mediation but not predestinarianism.

the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic.

that the fingertip is not undramatic is right.

sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fingertip is not undramatic is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not non-mediatory but a predestinarianism is not false. sent2: there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism. sent3: the fingertip is both a sexist and non-ecdemic if the triode is not non-ecdemic. sent4: the fingertip is not ecdemic if the triode is not ecdemic. sent5: something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic. sent6: if something is a sexist and ecdemic then it is undramatic. sent7: if something is mediatory but it is not a predestinarianism the triode is not ecdemic. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the triode is not ecdemic.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the fingertip is a sexist and not ecdemic.; sent5 -> int3: if the fingertip is a sexist that is not ecdemic it is undramatic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is mediatory but not a predestinarianism.

There is something that is mediation but not predestinarianism.

something is undramatic if it is a sexist and not ecdemic.

the solution is not a unconscientiousness.

sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the solution is not a unconscientiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the solution is a kind of a Friesian.; sent19 -> int2: the solution deprecates abutment.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the solution deprecates abutment and it is a Friesian.; sent9 -> int4: that the solution is not a unconscientiousness is not false if it does deprecate abutment and it is a Friesian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect.

There is something wrong with the fact that it is not unipolar.

if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian.

the solution is not a unconscientiousness.

sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the solution is not a unconscientiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the solution is a kind of a Friesian.; sent19 -> int2: the solution deprecates abutment.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the solution deprecates abutment and it is a Friesian.; sent9 -> int4: that the solution is not a unconscientiousness is not false if it does deprecate abutment and it is a Friesian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect.

There is something wrong with the fact that it is not unipolar and not immutable.

the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham.

the solution is not a unconscientiousness.

sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the solution is not a unconscientiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the arginine is epilithic but it is not a kind of a gat is wrong. sent2: something is a kind of a Birmingham if it disjoints. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar but immutable does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is epilithic and is not a gat is not right the fact that the backpacker is not a necromancer is right. sent5: something is a unconscientiousness and it does disjoint if it is not cercarial. sent6: if something is a kind of a Birmingham the fact that it does not deprecate abutment and it is not a Friesian is wrong. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is not right then the solution is a kind of a Friesian. sent8: the fact that the solution is a Friesian hold if there is something such that it is immutable. sent9: if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness. sent10: if something is not subtractive then it does disjoint and is cercarial. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it does deprecate abutment and is not a Birmingham is false. sent13: there exists something such that that it is unipolar and it is not immutable is not true. sent14: if the basidiocarp does not deprecate abutment then the fact that the solution is a kind of a unconscientiousness and it is a Friesian is correct. sent15: if the fact that something is a Kurdish but it is not a kind of a boondoggle is wrong it is not subtractive. sent16: there exists something such that it is not unipolar and not immutable. sent17: the solution is a kind of a Birmingham. sent18: something is a Birmingham if it is a kind of a Friesian. sent19: the solution does deprecate abutment and it is a Birmingham. sent20: if the backpacker is not a kind of a necromancer then the fact that the Caddo is a kind of a Kurdish but it does not boondoggle is wrong. sent21: the pistillode is a Friesian and it does deprecate abutment if there is something such that it is a unconscientiousness. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the solution is a kind of a Friesian.; sent19 -> int2: the solution deprecates abutment.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the solution deprecates abutment and it is a Friesian.; sent9 -> int4: that the solution is not a unconscientiousness is not false if it does deprecate abutment and it is a Friesian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it is not unipolar and it is not immutable is incorrect.

There is something incorrect about the fact that it is not unipolar.

if something deprecates abutment and is a kind of a Friesian it is not a unconscientiousness.

the deprecating altar does not occur.

sent1: that the deprecating gall occurs yields that the deprecating altar but not the rally occurs. sent2: the Merovingianness happens. sent3: the marveling appetite occurs. sent4: that the pubertalness occurs is wrong. sent5: the Palestinian and the intriguing occurs. sent6: the appreciation happens. sent7: the marveling peridotite happens and the gastroscopy occurs. sent8: the deprecating gall does not occur and the rallying does not occur if the deprecating Chaucer does not occur. sent9: that the arteriolarness and the genealogicness happens prevents the deprecating aptitude. sent10: if the rallying does not occur the deprecating altar happens and the appreciation occurs. sent11: that the deprecating gall occurs is brought about by either that the deprecating Chaucer does not occur or that the Orion does not occur or both. sent12: the netball does not occur. sent13: that both the appreciation and the rallying occurs brings about that the deprecating altar does not occur. sent14: the calyptrateness occurs. sent15: if that the appreciation happens and the deprecating fetching happens does not hold then the deprecating fetching does not occur. sent16: that the landing and the marveling AI occurs prevents that the animatisticness occurs. sent17: the deprecating amygdalin happens. sent18: if the rallying does not occur then that both the appreciation and the deprecating fetching happens is wrong. sent19: the rallying is prevented by that the deprecating gall occurs and the deprecating Chaucer does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {D} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent2: {K} sent3: {IR} sent4: ¬{AQ} sent5: ({IH} & {IS}) sent6: {A} sent7: ({BK} & {DM}) sent8: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{B}) sent9: ({CA} & {L}) -> ¬{CM} sent10: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent11: (¬{E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent12: ¬{N} sent13: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent14: {FE} sent15: ¬({A} & {U}) -> ¬{U} sent16: ({EJ} & {IN}) -> ¬{FA} sent17: {FG} sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {U}) sent19: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the deprecating fetching does not occur.

¬{U}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the deprecating altar does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the deprecating gall occurs yields that the deprecating altar but not the rally occurs. sent2: the Merovingianness happens. sent3: the marveling appetite occurs. sent4: that the pubertalness occurs is wrong. sent5: the Palestinian and the intriguing occurs. sent6: the appreciation happens. sent7: the marveling peridotite happens and the gastroscopy occurs. sent8: the deprecating gall does not occur and the rallying does not occur if the deprecating Chaucer does not occur. sent9: that the arteriolarness and the genealogicness happens prevents the deprecating aptitude. sent10: if the rallying does not occur the deprecating altar happens and the appreciation occurs. sent11: that the deprecating gall occurs is brought about by either that the deprecating Chaucer does not occur or that the Orion does not occur or both. sent12: the netball does not occur. sent13: that both the appreciation and the rallying occurs brings about that the deprecating altar does not occur. sent14: the calyptrateness occurs. sent15: if that the appreciation happens and the deprecating fetching happens does not hold then the deprecating fetching does not occur. sent16: that the landing and the marveling AI occurs prevents that the animatisticness occurs. sent17: the deprecating amygdalin happens. sent18: if the rallying does not occur then that both the appreciation and the deprecating fetching happens is wrong. sent19: the rallying is prevented by that the deprecating gall occurs and the deprecating Chaucer does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the pubertalness occurs is wrong.

that the pubertalness occurs is wrong.

the Palestinian and the intriguing occurs.

the shiksa is not bottom-up.

sent1: the admixture does wonder appropriator if it does wonder appropriator and/or is not invasive. sent2: if the maleate does not marvel Cocytus and it does not marvel vibrato the watercraft does transmit. sent3: the mayeng is bottom-up a brutalization if the shiksa is not a vespid. sent4: the mayeng does wonder Chekhov if the watercraft is not non-clockwise but it does not wonder Chekhov. sent5: something is a kind of clockwise thing that does not wonder Chekhov if it is Afghani. sent6: the maleate does not marvel Cocytus and it does not marvel vibrato. sent7: that the admixture wonders appropriator and/or it is not invasive hold. sent8: the shiksa is a brutalization. sent9: something is Afghani if it does transmit. sent10: that that the shiksa is a kind of the Briton is not wrong if the shiksa is a vespid is not false. sent11: that something is not non-bottom-up if it is a vespid is not false. sent12: the fact that something is not bottom-up and not a vespid is wrong if it is not a brutalization. sent13: the shiksa is a kind of a brutalization that is a vespid. sent14: the Ovrette is a vespid.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the shiksa is not bottom-up.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shiksa is not bottom-up. ; $context$ = sent1: the admixture does wonder appropriator if it does wonder appropriator and/or is not invasive. sent2: if the maleate does not marvel Cocytus and it does not marvel vibrato the watercraft does transmit. sent3: the mayeng is bottom-up a brutalization if the shiksa is not a vespid. sent4: the mayeng does wonder Chekhov if the watercraft is not non-clockwise but it does not wonder Chekhov. sent5: something is a kind of clockwise thing that does not wonder Chekhov if it is Afghani. sent6: the maleate does not marvel Cocytus and it does not marvel vibrato. sent7: that the admixture wonders appropriator and/or it is not invasive hold. sent8: the shiksa is a brutalization. sent9: something is Afghani if it does transmit. sent10: that that the shiksa is a kind of the Briton is not wrong if the shiksa is a vespid is not false. sent11: that something is not non-bottom-up if it is a vespid is not false. sent12: the fact that something is not bottom-up and not a vespid is wrong if it is not a brutalization. sent13: the shiksa is a kind of a brutalization that is a vespid. sent14: the Ovrette is a vespid. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the shiksa is a vespid.; sent11 -> int2: the fact that the shiksa is bottom-up is not incorrect if that that it is a vespid is wrong is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shiksa is a kind of a brutalization that is a vespid.

the shiksa is a kind of a brutalization that is a vespid.

that something is not non-bottom-up if it is a vespid is not false.

something is incorrigible and it is a kind of a Icelandic.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not positivist and it is a ferryman is not right. sent2: the plutocrat is incorrigible if there is something such that it is nasopharyngeal. sent3: if the dracontium is Icelandic then the plutocrat is a Icelandic. sent4: the plutocrat is incorrigible if there is something such that that it is non-nasopharyngeal and a demographic is false. sent5: there are Icelandic things. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct. sent7: the dracontium is a demographic. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a flint and angular is incorrect. sent9: something that is not a Sir is both a Icelandic and incorrigible. sent10: there is something such that that it is not nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that it is non-nasopharyngeal a demographic. sent12: there exists something such that it is incorrigible.

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

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AU}x & {DT}x) sent2: (x): {AA}x -> {A}{a} sent3: {B}{b} -> {B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {AB}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{BP}x & {BH}x) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (Ex): {A}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the seersucker is Icelandic.

{B}{bl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is incorrigible and it is a kind of a Icelandic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not positivist and it is a ferryman is not right. sent2: the plutocrat is incorrigible if there is something such that it is nasopharyngeal. sent3: if the dracontium is Icelandic then the plutocrat is a Icelandic. sent4: the plutocrat is incorrigible if there is something such that that it is non-nasopharyngeal and a demographic is false. sent5: there are Icelandic things. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct. sent7: the dracontium is a demographic. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a flint and angular is incorrect. sent9: something that is not a Sir is both a Icelandic and incorrigible. sent10: there is something such that that it is not nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that it is non-nasopharyngeal a demographic. sent12: there exists something such that it is incorrigible. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct.

there is something such that that it is not nasopharyngeal and it is a kind of a demographic is not correct.

the plutocrat is incorrigible if there is something such that that it is non-nasopharyngeal and a demographic is false.

the deprecating gig does not occur.

sent1: that the marveling Loafer and the non-unsarcasticness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the noncyclicness happens hold then not the expurgation but the blindedness occurs. sent3: the fact that the unhealthiness occurs but the wondering extrasystole does not occur does not hold. sent4: that the expurgation happens and the malignantness occurs results in that the deprecating gig does not occur. sent5: the fact that the marveling Loafer and the unsarcasticness occurs is incorrect. sent6: the blinded happens. sent7: the expurgation occurs if the fact that the marveling Loafer happens but the unsarcasticness does not occur is not right. sent8: that the unsarcasticness occurs yields that the expurgation occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {E} -> (¬{B} & {D}) sent3: ¬({EJ} & ¬{DD}) sent4: ({B} & {A}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent6: {D} sent7: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent8: {AB} -> {B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the deprecating gig happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the deprecating gig does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the marveling Loafer and the non-unsarcasticness occurs does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the noncyclicness happens hold then not the expurgation but the blindedness occurs. sent3: the fact that the unhealthiness occurs but the wondering extrasystole does not occur does not hold. sent4: that the expurgation happens and the malignantness occurs results in that the deprecating gig does not occur. sent5: the fact that the marveling Loafer and the unsarcasticness occurs is incorrect. sent6: the blinded happens. sent7: the expurgation occurs if the fact that the marveling Loafer happens but the unsarcasticness does not occur is not right. sent8: that the unsarcasticness occurs yields that the expurgation occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the expurgation occurs if the fact that the marveling Loafer happens but the unsarcasticness does not occur is not right.

the expurgation occurs if the fact that the marveling Loafer happens but the unsarcasticness does not occur is not right.

that the marveling Loafer and the non-unsarcasticness occurs does not hold.

the budding is cerebellar.

sent1: the Jesuit is interlocutory and does typeset floret if the crosshead is not euphoric. sent2: the fact that the budding is a kind of a shot but it is not a hammertoe is false. sent3: if there is something such that that it does not marvel budding and is not a shot is wrong then the budding is cerebellar. sent4: if that the accretion is not euphoric and/or it is not a kind of a Caterpillar is not true then the fact that the crosshead is not euphoric is correct. sent5: the accretion is not ohmic if the fact that either it is not an emigrant or it is a kind of a touchback or both does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it does marvel budding and is not a shot is not true. sent7: the fact that that the floret does not marvel budding and is not cerebellar is correct does not hold. sent8: something does not marvel budding and is not cerebellar. sent9: if there is something such that it is a kind of a shot the budding is cerebellar. sent10: that the visualizer is cerebellar hold. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-cerebellar thing that does not marvel budding is not right. sent12: the fact that that the budding is cerebellar but it does not marvel budding is not true is not wrong. sent13: something does not marvel budding and does not shoot. sent14: there is something such that it is not a shot and it is not cerebellar. sent15: the fact that the floret does not marvel budding and does shoot is false. sent16: that either the accretion is not euphoric or it is not a Caterpillar or both is incorrect if it is not ohmic. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does not marvel budding and it is a shot is not true. sent18: something is a kind of a Goudy and/or it is not a opportuneness if it is non-carcinogenic. sent19: if something is interlocutory the fact that it does not marvel salter and it is not disjunctive is not right. sent20: the competition is not carcinogenic if the fact that the Jesuit does not marvel salter and is not disjunctive is incorrect.

{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the budding is non-cerebellar.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the budding is cerebellar. ; $context$ = sent1: the Jesuit is interlocutory and does typeset floret if the crosshead is not euphoric. sent2: the fact that the budding is a kind of a shot but it is not a hammertoe is false. sent3: if there is something such that that it does not marvel budding and is not a shot is wrong then the budding is cerebellar. sent4: if that the accretion is not euphoric and/or it is not a kind of a Caterpillar is not true then the fact that the crosshead is not euphoric is correct. sent5: the accretion is not ohmic if the fact that either it is not an emigrant or it is a kind of a touchback or both does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that that it does marvel budding and is not a shot is not true. sent7: the fact that that the floret does not marvel budding and is not cerebellar is correct does not hold. sent8: something does not marvel budding and is not cerebellar. sent9: if there is something such that it is a kind of a shot the budding is cerebellar. sent10: that the visualizer is cerebellar hold. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-cerebellar thing that does not marvel budding is not right. sent12: the fact that that the budding is cerebellar but it does not marvel budding is not true is not wrong. sent13: something does not marvel budding and does not shoot. sent14: there is something such that it is not a shot and it is not cerebellar. sent15: the fact that the floret does not marvel budding and does shoot is false. sent16: that either the accretion is not euphoric or it is not a Caterpillar or both is incorrect if it is not ohmic. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does not marvel budding and it is a shot is not true. sent18: something is a kind of a Goudy and/or it is not a opportuneness if it is non-carcinogenic. sent19: if something is interlocutory the fact that it does not marvel salter and it is not disjunctive is not right. sent20: the competition is not carcinogenic if the fact that the Jesuit does not marvel salter and is not disjunctive is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the competition is not carcinogenic if the fact that the Jesuit does not marvel salter and is not disjunctive is incorrect.

the competition is not carcinogenic if the fact that the Jesuit does not marvel salter and is not disjunctive is incorrect.

something does not marvel budding and does not shoot.

the snowball is a mambo and it does deprecate snowball.

sent1: the capelin does not marvel score and does not mambo if the rosemary does not deprecate snowball. sent2: the snowball is a mambo if it does not wonder panhandler. sent3: the rosemary is a Wyeth if the Cajun does not marvel Pythia. sent4: the subtopia does deprecate snowball. sent5: something marvels Pythia. sent6: if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent7: the snowball is a mambo if it typesets Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent8: the snowball does typeset Cajun and/or it does wonder panhandler if it marvels score. sent9: the snowball typesets Cajun and/or wonders panhandler. sent10: something either does typeset Cajun or does wonder panhandler or both if it marvels score. sent11: if something does not marvel Pythia then the snowball is a Wyeth and it deprecates snowball. sent12: the snowball is a Wyeth. sent13: the snowball marvels score and it is quadrupedal. sent14: the recorder marvels subtopia and does hem if the capelin does not marvel score.

({B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬{F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{aj} sent5: (Ex): {F}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent9: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent12: {E}{aa} sent13: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ({BU}{ah} & {K}{ah})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the recorder does marvel subtopia and is a hem.

({BU}{ah} & {K}{ah})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the snowball is a mambo and it does deprecate snowball. ; $context$ = sent1: the capelin does not marvel score and does not mambo if the rosemary does not deprecate snowball. sent2: the snowball is a mambo if it does not wonder panhandler. sent3: the rosemary is a Wyeth if the Cajun does not marvel Pythia. sent4: the subtopia does deprecate snowball. sent5: something marvels Pythia. sent6: if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent7: the snowball is a mambo if it typesets Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent8: the snowball does typeset Cajun and/or it does wonder panhandler if it marvels score. sent9: the snowball typesets Cajun and/or wonders panhandler. sent10: something either does typeset Cajun or does wonder panhandler or both if it marvels score. sent11: if something does not marvel Pythia then the snowball is a Wyeth and it deprecates snowball. sent12: the snowball is a Wyeth. sent13: the snowball marvels score and it is quadrupedal. sent14: the recorder marvels subtopia and does hem if the capelin does not marvel score. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both.

If it does typeset Cajun or not, it does not wonder Panhandler or both.

the snowball marvels score and it is quadrupedal.

the snowball is a mambo and it does deprecate snowball.

sent1: the capelin does not marvel score and does not mambo if the rosemary does not deprecate snowball. sent2: the snowball is a mambo if it does not wonder panhandler. sent3: the rosemary is a Wyeth if the Cajun does not marvel Pythia. sent4: the subtopia does deprecate snowball. sent5: something marvels Pythia. sent6: if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent7: the snowball is a mambo if it typesets Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent8: the snowball does typeset Cajun and/or it does wonder panhandler if it marvels score. sent9: the snowball typesets Cajun and/or wonders panhandler. sent10: something either does typeset Cajun or does wonder panhandler or both if it marvels score. sent11: if something does not marvel Pythia then the snowball is a Wyeth and it deprecates snowball. sent12: the snowball is a Wyeth. sent13: the snowball marvels score and it is quadrupedal. sent14: the recorder marvels subtopia and does hem if the capelin does not marvel score.

({B}{aa} & {C}{aa})

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬{F}{c} -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{aj} sent5: (Ex): {F}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent9: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent12: {E}{aa} sent13: ({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ({BU}{ah} & {K}{ah})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the recorder does marvel subtopia and is a hem.

({BU}{ah} & {K}{ah})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the snowball is a mambo and it does deprecate snowball. ; $context$ = sent1: the capelin does not marvel score and does not mambo if the rosemary does not deprecate snowball. sent2: the snowball is a mambo if it does not wonder panhandler. sent3: the rosemary is a Wyeth if the Cajun does not marvel Pythia. sent4: the subtopia does deprecate snowball. sent5: something marvels Pythia. sent6: if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent7: the snowball is a mambo if it typesets Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both. sent8: the snowball does typeset Cajun and/or it does wonder panhandler if it marvels score. sent9: the snowball typesets Cajun and/or wonders panhandler. sent10: something either does typeset Cajun or does wonder panhandler or both if it marvels score. sent11: if something does not marvel Pythia then the snowball is a Wyeth and it deprecates snowball. sent12: the snowball is a Wyeth. sent13: the snowball marvels score and it is quadrupedal. sent14: the recorder marvels subtopia and does hem if the capelin does not marvel score. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does marvel score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both.

If something does score either it does typeset Cajun or it does not.

the snowball is a mambo if it typesets Cajun or it does not wonder panhandler or both.

the darter is not a diesel-electric.

sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: {HD}{b} sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {A}{bh} sent7: {P}{a} -> {D}{a} sent8: {D}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent11: {IE}{a} -> {C}{a} sent12: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent13: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the darter is not a kind of a diesel-electric.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the darter is not a diesel-electric. ; $context$ = sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the darter is monatomic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the darter is multicultural.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic.

The darter is monatomic if the whetstone is suppurative.

the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold.

the darter is not a diesel-electric.

sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: {HD}{b} sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {A}{bh} sent7: {P}{a} -> {D}{a} sent8: {D}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent11: {IE}{a} -> {C}{a} sent12: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent13: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the darter is not a kind of a diesel-electric.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the darter is not a diesel-electric. ; $context$ = sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the darter is monatomic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the darter is multicultural.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic.

The darter is monatomic if the whetstone is not suppurative.

the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct.

the darter is not a diesel-electric.

sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: {HD}{b} sent3: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {A}{bh} sent7: {P}{a} -> {D}{a} sent8: {D}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent10: {B}{b} -> {C}{b} sent11: {IE}{a} -> {C}{a} sent12: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent13: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the darter is not a kind of a diesel-electric.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the darter is not a diesel-electric. ; $context$ = sent1: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if the darter is not nonsuppurative. sent2: the darter deprecates moonlighter. sent3: if the whetstone is suppurative then it is multicultural. sent4: if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic. sent5: the fact that the fact that the darter is both non-monatomic and not suppurative hold does not hold if the whetstone is not multicultural. sent6: the vinaigrette is suppurative. sent7: the whetstone is a diesel-electric if it is a due. sent8: the whetstone is monatomic if the darter is a diesel-electric. sent9: if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric. sent10: the darter is multicultural if the fact that it is monatomic is correct. sent11: if the whetstone is a kind of a Lahu it is multicultural. sent12: if the darter is suppurative the whetstone is monatomic. sent13: the fact that the whetstone is suppurative hold. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent13 -> int1: the darter is monatomic.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the darter is multicultural.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the whetstone is suppurative then the darter is monatomic.

The darter is monatomic if it is suppurative.

if the darter is multicultural then it is a diesel-electric.

the pinetum does not tootle.

sent1: if the apprentice is a ice-skater then the solitary is a Genyonemus. sent2: the pinetum does not tootle if that the solitary palls pula is not incorrect. sent3: if the solitary is a Genyonemus the honoree does drain apprentice. sent4: that the honoree is not a coiner and/or is not vestiary is not true. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not clink is not incorrect the metallurgist is a serologist. sent6: the fact that the pinetum does not concentrate but it is a kind of a intelligibility is incorrect if the honoree does drain apprentice. sent7: something does tootle and palls pula if it is not a intelligibility. sent8: the apprentice either is a ice-skater or is a kind of a serologist or both if something is a serologist. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a concentrate and is a intelligibility does not hold it is not a intelligibility. sent10: the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct. sent11: something does not clink if it is a converse. sent12: the liposome is a kind of a converse.

¬{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pinetum is a tootle.

{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pinetum does not tootle. ; $context$ = sent1: if the apprentice is a ice-skater then the solitary is a Genyonemus. sent2: the pinetum does not tootle if that the solitary palls pula is not incorrect. sent3: if the solitary is a Genyonemus the honoree does drain apprentice. sent4: that the honoree is not a coiner and/or is not vestiary is not true. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not clink is not incorrect the metallurgist is a serologist. sent6: the fact that the pinetum does not concentrate but it is a kind of a intelligibility is incorrect if the honoree does drain apprentice. sent7: something does tootle and palls pula if it is not a intelligibility. sent8: the apprentice either is a ice-skater or is a kind of a serologist or both if something is a serologist. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a concentrate and is a intelligibility does not hold it is not a intelligibility. sent10: the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct. sent11: something does not clink if it is a converse. sent12: the liposome is a kind of a converse. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the solitary palls pula.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct.

If the honoree is not a coiner or vestiary, the palls pula is not correct.

that the honoree is not a coiner and/or is not vestiary is not true.

the pinetum does not tootle.

sent1: if the apprentice is a ice-skater then the solitary is a Genyonemus. sent2: the pinetum does not tootle if that the solitary palls pula is not incorrect. sent3: if the solitary is a Genyonemus the honoree does drain apprentice. sent4: that the honoree is not a coiner and/or is not vestiary is not true. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not clink is not incorrect the metallurgist is a serologist. sent6: the fact that the pinetum does not concentrate but it is a kind of a intelligibility is incorrect if the honoree does drain apprentice. sent7: something does tootle and palls pula if it is not a intelligibility. sent8: the apprentice either is a ice-skater or is a kind of a serologist or both if something is a serologist. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a concentrate and is a intelligibility does not hold it is not a intelligibility. sent10: the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct. sent11: something does not clink if it is a converse. sent12: the liposome is a kind of a converse.

¬{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the pinetum is a tootle.

{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pinetum does not tootle. ; $context$ = sent1: if the apprentice is a ice-skater then the solitary is a Genyonemus. sent2: the pinetum does not tootle if that the solitary palls pula is not incorrect. sent3: if the solitary is a Genyonemus the honoree does drain apprentice. sent4: that the honoree is not a coiner and/or is not vestiary is not true. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not clink is not incorrect the metallurgist is a serologist. sent6: the fact that the pinetum does not concentrate but it is a kind of a intelligibility is incorrect if the honoree does drain apprentice. sent7: something does tootle and palls pula if it is not a intelligibility. sent8: the apprentice either is a ice-skater or is a kind of a serologist or both if something is a serologist. sent9: if the fact that something is not a kind of a concentrate and is a intelligibility does not hold it is not a intelligibility. sent10: the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct. sent11: something does not clink if it is a converse. sent12: the liposome is a kind of a converse. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the solitary palls pula.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the solitary palls pula if that the honoree either is not a coiner or is not vestiary or both is not correct.

If the honoree is not a coiner or vestiary, then the palls pula is not correct.

the pinetum does not tootle if that the solitary palls pula is not incorrect.

the lizardfish is not a kind of a Tanoan.

sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Lenard the lizardfish is outdoor but it dragoons manumission. sent2: that something is a Lenard that does dragoon manumission does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent3: if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless. sent4: that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is incorrect. sent5: if something is a kind of non-indoor thing that dragoons manumission it does not uplift. sent6: that the shard is not noncritical but it is a Lenard does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent7: everything is not a proboscidean. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a Lenard and it dragoons manumission is not true then the Palatine is not indoor. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not noncritical and it is a Lenard is not true then the Palatine is not a Lenard. sent10: if something is a kind of an uplifted that is not bellyless then the lizardfish is not a Tanoan. sent11: the shard is not a kind of a proboscidean. sent12: if something is bellyless then it is a Tanoan.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the lizardfish is not a Tanoan.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lizardfish is not a kind of a Tanoan. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Lenard the lizardfish is outdoor but it dragoons manumission. sent2: that something is a Lenard that does dragoon manumission does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent3: if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless. sent4: that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is incorrect. sent5: if something is a kind of non-indoor thing that dragoons manumission it does not uplift. sent6: that the shard is not noncritical but it is a Lenard does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent7: everything is not a proboscidean. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a Lenard and it dragoons manumission is not true then the Palatine is not indoor. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not noncritical and it is a Lenard is not true then the Palatine is not a Lenard. sent10: if something is a kind of an uplifted that is not bellyless then the lizardfish is not a Tanoan. sent11: the shard is not a kind of a proboscidean. sent12: if something is bellyless then it is a Tanoan. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the lizardfish is bellyless is true.; sent12 -> int2: the lizardfish is a Tanoan if it is bellyless.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless.

The lizardfish is bellyless if that is the case.

that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is incorrect.

the lizardfish is not a kind of a Tanoan.

sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Lenard the lizardfish is outdoor but it dragoons manumission. sent2: that something is a Lenard that does dragoon manumission does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent3: if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless. sent4: that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is incorrect. sent5: if something is a kind of non-indoor thing that dragoons manumission it does not uplift. sent6: that the shard is not noncritical but it is a Lenard does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent7: everything is not a proboscidean. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a Lenard and it dragoons manumission is not true then the Palatine is not indoor. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not noncritical and it is a Lenard is not true then the Palatine is not a Lenard. sent10: if something is a kind of an uplifted that is not bellyless then the lizardfish is not a Tanoan. sent11: the shard is not a kind of a proboscidean. sent12: if something is bellyless then it is a Tanoan.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the lizardfish is not a Tanoan.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lizardfish is not a kind of a Tanoan. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Lenard the lizardfish is outdoor but it dragoons manumission. sent2: that something is a Lenard that does dragoon manumission does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent3: if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless. sent4: that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is incorrect. sent5: if something is a kind of non-indoor thing that dragoons manumission it does not uplift. sent6: that the shard is not noncritical but it is a Lenard does not hold if it is not a proboscidean. sent7: everything is not a proboscidean. sent8: if there is something such that that it is a Lenard and it dragoons manumission is not true then the Palatine is not indoor. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not noncritical and it is a Lenard is not true then the Palatine is not a Lenard. sent10: if something is a kind of an uplifted that is not bellyless then the lizardfish is not a Tanoan. sent11: the shard is not a kind of a proboscidean. sent12: if something is bellyless then it is a Tanoan. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the lizardfish is bellyless is true.; sent12 -> int2: the lizardfish is a Tanoan if it is bellyless.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that that the lizardfish is a fruit but it is not dural is correct is incorrect then it is bellyless.

If the lizardfish is a fruit but not dural, then it is bellyless.

if something is bellyless then it is a Tanoan.

the fact that the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or is not a defile is not right.

sent1: if something is cucurbitaceous then the fact that it does not examine applemint and it is loamy is incorrect. sent2: if something that is not a bridle is not a kind of a juke the autoinjector is not a kind of a free. sent3: the fact that the bruin is cucurbitaceous is not incorrect if something is a kind of non-forgetful thing that is not a kind of a tremble. sent4: the fact that either something is unpropitious or it is not a defile or both is incorrect if it is unfree. sent5: the applemint is not forgetful and it is not a kind of a tremble. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a bridle. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke.

¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or it is not a defile.

({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or is not a defile is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is cucurbitaceous then the fact that it does not examine applemint and it is loamy is incorrect. sent2: if something that is not a bridle is not a kind of a juke the autoinjector is not a kind of a free. sent3: the fact that the bruin is cucurbitaceous is not incorrect if something is a kind of non-forgetful thing that is not a kind of a tremble. sent4: the fact that either something is unpropitious or it is not a defile or both is incorrect if it is unfree. sent5: the applemint is not forgetful and it is not a kind of a tremble. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a bridle. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the autoinjector is not free.; sent4 -> int2: if the fact that the autoinjector is not free is right that it either is unpropitious or is not a defile or both is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke.

There is something that is not a bridle and is not a juke.

if something that is not a bridle is not a kind of a juke the autoinjector is not a kind of a free.

the fact that the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or is not a defile is not right.

sent1: if something is cucurbitaceous then the fact that it does not examine applemint and it is loamy is incorrect. sent2: if something that is not a bridle is not a kind of a juke the autoinjector is not a kind of a free. sent3: the fact that the bruin is cucurbitaceous is not incorrect if something is a kind of non-forgetful thing that is not a kind of a tremble. sent4: the fact that either something is unpropitious or it is not a defile or both is incorrect if it is unfree. sent5: the applemint is not forgetful and it is not a kind of a tremble. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a bridle. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke.

¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or it is not a defile.

({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the autoinjector is unpropitious and/or is not a defile is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is cucurbitaceous then the fact that it does not examine applemint and it is loamy is incorrect. sent2: if something that is not a bridle is not a kind of a juke the autoinjector is not a kind of a free. sent3: the fact that the bruin is cucurbitaceous is not incorrect if something is a kind of non-forgetful thing that is not a kind of a tremble. sent4: the fact that either something is unpropitious or it is not a defile or both is incorrect if it is unfree. sent5: the applemint is not forgetful and it is not a kind of a tremble. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a bridle. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the autoinjector is not free.; sent4 -> int2: if the fact that the autoinjector is not free is right that it either is unpropitious or is not a defile or both is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a kind of a bridle and is not a kind of a juke.

There is a thing that is not a bridle and is not a juke.

the fact that either something is unpropitious or it is not a defile or both is incorrect if it is unfree.

the fact that the looting does not occur hold.

sent1: if that the fact that the dragooning Pachyrhizus does not occur and/or the fug does not occur is true is wrong then the premenopausalness does not occur. sent2: the opisthognathousness does not occur. sent3: that if the intrauterineness does not occur then the funerariness happens and the dragooning pike-perch happens is true. sent4: that if that both the non-metrologicalness and the aerophilatelicness happens is not true then the commencement does not occur is true. sent5: that the looting does not occur and the dragooning neuropteron does not occur is incorrect if that the survey occurs is correct. sent6: that the overflight happens and/or that the survey does not occur is triggered by that the funerariness occurs. sent7: if the Nepaleseness occurs and the examining petchary happens then the looting does not occur. sent8: if the commencement does not occur and the unafraidness happens the pressing does not occur. sent9: if the heterosexualness does not occur then the Siouanness occurs and the stereoscopicness occurs. sent10: that both the Nepalese and the examining petchary happens is triggered by that the dragooning neuropteron does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the Nepaleseness happens but the examining petchary does not occur is false the looting occurs. sent12: the intrauterineness does not occur if the apomicticness happens. sent13: if the dragooning homopteran occurs then the fact that the dragooning Pachyrhizus does not occur or the fug does not occur or both is wrong. sent14: the Nepalese does not occur. sent15: if the fact that both the examining exultation and the heterosexualness occurs is not true the heterosexualness does not occur. sent16: the dragooning homopteran occurs if the Siouanness happens. sent17: the fact that both the examining exultation and the heterosexual happens is not correct if the pressing does not occur. sent18: the overflight does not occur and the surveying happens if the funerariness occurs. sent19: if the premenopausalness does not occur then the apomicticness happens and the macrocephalicness happens. sent20: that the draining nonreader and the Nepalese occurs is brought about by that the examining petchary does not occur.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the draining nonreader occurs.

{BQ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the looting does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the fact that the dragooning Pachyrhizus does not occur and/or the fug does not occur is true is wrong then the premenopausalness does not occur. sent2: the opisthognathousness does not occur. sent3: that if the intrauterineness does not occur then the funerariness happens and the dragooning pike-perch happens is true. sent4: that if that both the non-metrologicalness and the aerophilatelicness happens is not true then the commencement does not occur is true. sent5: that the looting does not occur and the dragooning neuropteron does not occur is incorrect if that the survey occurs is correct. sent6: that the overflight happens and/or that the survey does not occur is triggered by that the funerariness occurs. sent7: if the Nepaleseness occurs and the examining petchary happens then the looting does not occur. sent8: if the commencement does not occur and the unafraidness happens the pressing does not occur. sent9: if the heterosexualness does not occur then the Siouanness occurs and the stereoscopicness occurs. sent10: that both the Nepalese and the examining petchary happens is triggered by that the dragooning neuropteron does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the Nepaleseness happens but the examining petchary does not occur is false the looting occurs. sent12: the intrauterineness does not occur if the apomicticness happens. sent13: if the dragooning homopteran occurs then the fact that the dragooning Pachyrhizus does not occur or the fug does not occur or both is wrong. sent14: the Nepalese does not occur. sent15: if the fact that both the examining exultation and the heterosexualness occurs is not true the heterosexualness does not occur. sent16: the dragooning homopteran occurs if the Siouanness happens. sent17: the fact that both the examining exultation and the heterosexual happens is not correct if the pressing does not occur. sent18: the overflight does not occur and the surveying happens if the funerariness occurs. sent19: if the premenopausalness does not occur then the apomicticness happens and the macrocephalicness happens. sent20: that the draining nonreader and the Nepalese occurs is brought about by that the examining petchary does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Nepalese but not the examining petchary happens.; assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Nepaleseness happens hold.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that that the Nepaleseness but not the examining petchary occurs is wrong is not wrong.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Nepalese does not occur.

the Nepalese does not occur.

if the fact that the Nepaleseness happens but the examining petchary does not occur is false the looting occurs.

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary. ; $context$ = sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the snowberry is nonaddictive.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the dickeybird is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive is not right.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that the dickeybird is salivary and is not nonaddictive is not correct it is nonarbitrary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive.

If the snowberry is not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive.

the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative.

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary. ; $context$ = sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the snowberry is nonaddictive.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the dickeybird is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive is not right.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that the dickeybird is salivary and is not nonaddictive is not correct it is nonarbitrary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive.

If the snowberry is not negligent and not argumentative, then it is nonaddictive.

that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold.

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dickeybird is not nonarbitrary. ; $context$ = sent1: the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe if the chocolate is acanthotic but it is not a kind of a pousse-cafe. sent2: if something is a kind of a shy that the nonparticipant drains Lilith but it does not condense does not hold. sent3: that the Gongorist drains Gwynn hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does not drains Gwynn and is back-channel is not true. sent4: something does dragoon complex if the fact that it does not dragoon complex and does not stoke is incorrect. sent5: that the dickeybird is salivary and it is nonaddictive does not hold. sent6: if the depositor does dragoon nonparticipant the fact that it does not drain Gwynn and is back-channel is not right. sent7: if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary. sent8: if the athenaeum is nonaddictive the fact that the snowberry is not salivary and is nonarbitrary is false. sent9: that that the dickeybird is salivary but it is not nonaddictive is correct is incorrect if that the snowberry is nonaddictive hold. sent10: if that something does dragoon complex is not wrong then it is both acanthotic and not a pousse-cafe. sent11: if the fowler is unrighteous the depositor dragoons nonparticipant. sent12: if something is not salivary then it is not a Trogium and it is not argumentative. sent13: if something does drain Lilith then either it is not nonaddictive or it is nonarbitrary or both. sent14: if that the Gongorist disincarnates hold then that the chocolate does not dragoon complex and it does not stoke does not hold. sent15: if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive. sent16: the fowler is unrighteous. sent17: the snowberry is not negligent and it is not argumentative. sent18: something disincarnates if it does drain Gwynn. sent19: the athenaeum is nonaddictive if there exists something such that the fact that it does drain Lilith and it does not condense is false. sent20: the term is a shy that does not account if the piperacillin is not a pousse-cafe. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent17 -> int1: the snowberry is nonaddictive.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the dickeybird is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive is not right.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that the dickeybird is salivary and is not nonaddictive is not correct it is nonarbitrary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the snowberry is both not negligent and not argumentative then it is nonaddictive.

If the snowberry is not negligent then it is nonaddictive.

if that something is a kind of salivary thing that is not nonaddictive does not hold it is nonarbitrary.

not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs.

sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

sent1: {J} -> {H} sent2: {F} -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬(¬{IQ} v {BR}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent10: ¬{JJ} sent11: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent12: {H} -> ¬({D} & ¬{B}) sent13: ¬({D} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent14: {AA} sent15: ¬{I} -> ({F} & {G}) sent16: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {K} -> ¬{I} sent18: {A} -> ¬(¬{EH} v {EM}) sent19: ¬({D} & {C}) sent20: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent21: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{D} sent22: ({M} & {J})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dragooning unconcern does not occur and the square happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is incorrect.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the azoticness does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur.

It is false if the assumption does not occur and the auricularness does not occur.

the burn does not occur.

not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs.

sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

sent1: {J} -> {H} sent2: {F} -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬(¬{IQ} v {BR}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent10: ¬{JJ} sent11: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent12: {H} -> ¬({D} & ¬{B}) sent13: ¬({D} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent14: {AA} sent15: ¬{I} -> ({F} & {G}) sent16: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {K} -> ¬{I} sent18: {A} -> ¬(¬{EH} v {EM}) sent19: ¬({D} & {C}) sent20: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent21: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{D} sent22: ({M} & {J})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dragooning unconcern does not occur and the square happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is incorrect.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the azoticness does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur.

The assumption doesn't happen and the auricularness doesn't happen if the burning doesn't happen.

if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur.

not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs.

sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

sent1: {J} -> {H} sent2: {F} -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬(¬{IQ} v {BR}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent5: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {A}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent10: ¬{JJ} sent11: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent12: {H} -> ¬({D} & ¬{B}) sent13: ¬({D} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent14: {AA} sent15: ¬{I} -> ({F} & {G}) sent16: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {K} -> ¬{I} sent18: {A} -> ¬(¬{EH} v {EM}) sent19: ¬({D} & {C}) sent20: ¬{B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent21: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{D} sent22: ({M} & {J})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the dragooning unconcern does not occur and the square happens.

(¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the dragooning unconcern but the square occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the epileptic occurs if the mindfulness happens. sent2: if the surfacing occurs then the fact that the extradition does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that either the unobligatedness or the nones or both happens does not hold. sent4: if the fact that the assumption does not occur or the auricularness occurs or both does not hold then the azoticness does not occur. sent5: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern happens and the azoticness happens does not hold then the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur hold. sent6: the burn does not occur. sent7: the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur. sent8: if the extradition does not occur then the square and the burn happens. sent9: if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct. sent10: the angulation does not occur. sent11: that the burn does not occur prevents that the assumption does not occur. sent12: that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness happens is incorrect if the epileptic happens. sent13: if the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the non-azoticness occurs is false the dragooning unconcern does not occur. sent14: the assumption happens. sent15: both the surfacing and the disobedience happens if the Franciscanness does not occur. sent16: if that the assumption occurs and/or the auricularness happens is not right the azoticness does not occur. sent17: the non-Franciscanness is triggered by the feature. sent18: if the burning happens then the fact that either the dragooning sentience does not occur or the palling constatation occurs or both is not right. sent19: the fact that the fact that the dragooning unconcern and the squareness occurs is not correct hold. sent20: that the dragooning unconcern happens and the square happens is not correct if the azoticness does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the extradition or the surfacingness or both occurs is not correct the fact that the dragooning unconcern does not occur is right. sent22: the knowableness and the mindfulness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is incorrect.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the azoticness does not occur.; sent9 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the assumption does not occur and/or the auricularness occurs is false if the burning does not occur.

If the burning doesn't happen, the assumption doesn't happen and the auricularness doesn't happen.

if the azoticness does not occur then the fact that that the dragooning unconcern does not occur but the square occurs is not correct is correct.

the percher is a podocarp.

sent1: the percher does not dragoon LISP and is a Kera if there is something such that it does not pall Wanamaker. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a nirvana. sent3: if there is something such that it is not a nirvana then that the percher is not a Kera is not false. sent4: the glucosamine is not physiological and is a kind of a Abutilon if there is something such that it is not a Kera. sent5: if something is not a nirvana then the percher is not a Kera but a podocarp. sent6: the fact that something is not a Kera is not wrong. sent7: if the Ovulen is a kind of a nirvana the cockhorse is not a kind of a podocarp. sent8: the percher is non-aphaeretic thing that is a kind of a paisa if something is not a kind of a podocarp. sent9: the krigia is not a nirvana but it does pall towpath if there exists something such that it is not dramaturgic. sent10: the percher is not a kind of a Kera. sent11: something is a kind of a nirvana. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a podocarp. sent13: the towpath is not a podocarp but it is a kind of a tubeless.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{DF}x -> (¬{CU}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{F}{fo} & {DC}{fo}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent7: {A}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{GT}{a} & {HO}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{IN}x -> (¬{A}{jb} & {HS}{jb}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent13: (¬{C}{ip} & {AT}{ip})

PROVED

PROVED

the percher is not a podocarp.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the percher is a podocarp. ; $context$ = sent1: the percher does not dragoon LISP and is a Kera if there is something such that it does not pall Wanamaker. sent2: there exists something such that it is not a nirvana. sent3: if there is something such that it is not a nirvana then that the percher is not a Kera is not false. sent4: the glucosamine is not physiological and is a kind of a Abutilon if there is something such that it is not a Kera. sent5: if something is not a nirvana then the percher is not a Kera but a podocarp. sent6: the fact that something is not a Kera is not wrong. sent7: if the Ovulen is a kind of a nirvana the cockhorse is not a kind of a podocarp. sent8: the percher is non-aphaeretic thing that is a kind of a paisa if something is not a kind of a podocarp. sent9: the krigia is not a nirvana but it does pall towpath if there exists something such that it is not dramaturgic. sent10: the percher is not a kind of a Kera. sent11: something is a kind of a nirvana. sent12: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a podocarp. sent13: the towpath is not a podocarp but it is a kind of a tubeless. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the percher is not a Kera but it is a podocarp.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a nirvana.

there exists something such that it is not a nirvana.

if something is not a nirvana then the percher is not a Kera but a podocarp.

the finalization does not occur.

sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect.

¬{D}

sent1: {E} -> {C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) -> {I} sent4: {F} -> {C} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent6: ¬{HN} sent7: ¬{G} -> {F} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: ({F} v {E}) sent10: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {B} sent12: ({FG} & {IA}) sent13: {E} -> ¬{C}

PROVED

PROVED

the finalization happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finalization does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the disapproval occurs.; sent9 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the misdealing happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the disapproval happens and the misdeal occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs.

disapproval and exhaustion occur.

the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both.

the finalization does not occur.

sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect.

¬{D}

sent1: {E} -> {C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) -> {I} sent4: {F} -> {C} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent6: ¬{HN} sent7: ¬{G} -> {F} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: ({F} v {E}) sent10: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {B} sent12: ({FG} & {IA}) sent13: {E} -> ¬{C}

PROVED

PROVED

the finalization happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finalization does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the disapproval occurs.; sent9 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the misdealing happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the disapproval happens and the misdeal occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs.

The exhaustion and disapproval occur at the same time.

that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs.

the finalization does not occur.

sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect.

¬{D}

sent1: {E} -> {C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) -> {I} sent4: {F} -> {C} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent6: ¬{HN} sent7: ¬{G} -> {F} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: ({F} v {E}) sent10: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {B} sent12: ({FG} & {IA}) sent13: {E} -> ¬{C}

PROVED

PROVED

the finalization happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finalization does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the disapproval occurs.; sent9 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the misdealing happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the disapproval happens and the misdeal occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs.

The exhaustion occurs when the disapproval occurs.

if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs.

the finalization does not occur.

sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect.

¬{D}

sent1: {E} -> {C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{B}) -> {I} sent4: {F} -> {C} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent6: ¬{HN} sent7: ¬{G} -> {F} sent8: ({A} & {B}) sent9: ({F} v {E}) sent10: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {B} sent12: ({FG} & {IA}) sent13: {E} -> ¬{C}

PROVED

PROVED

the finalization happens.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the finalization does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the grousing occurs is not false the misdeal occurs. sent2: that the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur is correct is not correct if the misdealing does not occur. sent3: the fact that if the fact that the Tibetanness does not occur and the exhaustion does not occur does not hold then the Tibetanness happens is not false. sent4: that the misdeal does not occur is prevented by that the consultancy occurs. sent5: the finalization happens and the disapproval occurs if the exhaustion does not occur. sent6: the draining model does not occur. sent7: the consultancy occurs if the blastodermaticness does not occur. sent8: the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs. sent9: the consultancy occurs or the grousing happens or both. sent10: if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold. sent11: the exhaustion occurs. sent12: the tossup and the cover-up happens. sent13: if the grouse occurs the fact that the misdeal does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the disapproval occurs.; sent9 & sent4 & sent1 -> int2: the misdealing happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the disapproval happens and the misdeal occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the disapproval occurs and the exhaustion occurs.

disapproval and exhaustion occur at the same time.

if the disapproval and the misdealing happens the fact that the finalization happens does not hold.

the nightingale is not batholithic.

sent1: if the fact that the nightingale is batholithic is correct that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is a kind of a sterol does not hold. sent2: the anorexic is not batholithic. sent3: the platform is a sterol. sent4: if the anorexic does dragoon airmailer then the nightingale is not batholithic. sent5: something is canalicular but it is not a sterol if it is not a kind of a hypsography. sent6: that something is Mesoamerican but not a hypsography if it is not a kind of a plug is correct. sent7: that the nightingale is both not batholithic and a sterol is not right. sent8: if something is a hypsography that it is not canalicular and it is batholithic is not true. sent9: the nightingale is not a kind of a sterol if that the platform is not boustrophedonic but it is batholithic is wrong. sent10: the cadmium is batholithic. sent11: the fact that the anorexic is not batholithic if that the nightingale is non-canalicular thing that is batholithic is not true hold. sent12: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol. sent13: the fact that the platform is a kind of a sterol and it dragoons airmailer is wrong if the nightingale is batholithic. sent14: if the anorexic is boustrophedonic the platform is boustrophedonic. sent15: the nightingale is not batholithic if the fact that that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic hold is not true.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the nightingale is not non-batholithic.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nightingale is not batholithic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the nightingale is batholithic is correct that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is a kind of a sterol does not hold. sent2: the anorexic is not batholithic. sent3: the platform is a sterol. sent4: if the anorexic does dragoon airmailer then the nightingale is not batholithic. sent5: something is canalicular but it is not a sterol if it is not a kind of a hypsography. sent6: that something is Mesoamerican but not a hypsography if it is not a kind of a plug is correct. sent7: that the nightingale is both not batholithic and a sterol is not right. sent8: if something is a hypsography that it is not canalicular and it is batholithic is not true. sent9: the nightingale is not a kind of a sterol if that the platform is not boustrophedonic but it is batholithic is wrong. sent10: the cadmium is batholithic. sent11: the fact that the anorexic is not batholithic if that the nightingale is non-canalicular thing that is batholithic is not true hold. sent12: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol. sent13: the fact that the platform is a kind of a sterol and it dragoons airmailer is wrong if the nightingale is batholithic. sent14: if the anorexic is boustrophedonic the platform is boustrophedonic. sent15: the nightingale is not batholithic if the fact that that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic hold is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent3 -> int1: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic does not hold.; sent15 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol.

If the platform is a sterol, the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer.

the platform is a sterol.

the nightingale is not batholithic.

sent1: if the fact that the nightingale is batholithic is correct that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is a kind of a sterol does not hold. sent2: the anorexic is not batholithic. sent3: the platform is a sterol. sent4: if the anorexic does dragoon airmailer then the nightingale is not batholithic. sent5: something is canalicular but it is not a sterol if it is not a kind of a hypsography. sent6: that something is Mesoamerican but not a hypsography if it is not a kind of a plug is correct. sent7: that the nightingale is both not batholithic and a sterol is not right. sent8: if something is a hypsography that it is not canalicular and it is batholithic is not true. sent9: the nightingale is not a kind of a sterol if that the platform is not boustrophedonic but it is batholithic is wrong. sent10: the cadmium is batholithic. sent11: the fact that the anorexic is not batholithic if that the nightingale is non-canalicular thing that is batholithic is not true hold. sent12: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol. sent13: the fact that the platform is a kind of a sterol and it dragoons airmailer is wrong if the nightingale is batholithic. sent14: if the anorexic is boustrophedonic the platform is boustrophedonic. sent15: the nightingale is not batholithic if the fact that that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic hold is not true.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the nightingale is not non-batholithic.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nightingale is not batholithic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the nightingale is batholithic is correct that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is a kind of a sterol does not hold. sent2: the anorexic is not batholithic. sent3: the platform is a sterol. sent4: if the anorexic does dragoon airmailer then the nightingale is not batholithic. sent5: something is canalicular but it is not a sterol if it is not a kind of a hypsography. sent6: that something is Mesoamerican but not a hypsography if it is not a kind of a plug is correct. sent7: that the nightingale is both not batholithic and a sterol is not right. sent8: if something is a hypsography that it is not canalicular and it is batholithic is not true. sent9: the nightingale is not a kind of a sterol if that the platform is not boustrophedonic but it is batholithic is wrong. sent10: the cadmium is batholithic. sent11: the fact that the anorexic is not batholithic if that the nightingale is non-canalicular thing that is batholithic is not true hold. sent12: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol. sent13: the fact that the platform is a kind of a sterol and it dragoons airmailer is wrong if the nightingale is batholithic. sent14: if the anorexic is boustrophedonic the platform is boustrophedonic. sent15: the nightingale is not batholithic if the fact that that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic hold is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent3 -> int1: that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic does not hold.; sent15 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic is not right if the platform is a sterol.

If the platform is a sterol, then the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer.

the nightingale is not batholithic if the fact that that the anorexic does not dragoon airmailer and is boustrophedonic hold is not true.

the fact that the dynamicsness happens or the permutation happens or both is wrong.

sent1: the myalgicness happens. sent2: if that the vestiariness does not occur and the palling goitrogen happens is false then the vestiariness happens. sent3: the headstand occurs. sent4: the headstand and/or the Zambian occurs. sent5: the dragooning rosebud occurs. sent6: the telephotography and the myalgicness happens. sent7: the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens. sent8: the fact that either the dynamics occurs or the permutation happens or both is not correct if the fact that the palling goitrogen does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: the telephotography happens if the eye occurs. sent10: the baptism occurs. sent11: either the palling Rajidae or the wilting or both happens. sent12: the anthropologicalness happens. sent13: the loading occurs. sent14: the non-dynamicsness is prevented by the palling goitrogen.

¬({C} v {D})

sent1: {DB} sent2: ¬(¬{BN} & {A}) -> {BN} sent3: {BO} sent4: ({BO} v {BC}) sent5: {B} sent6: ({FC} & {DB}) sent7: ({A} & {B}) sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent9: {AT} -> {FC} sent10: {GK} sent11: ({CH} v {I}) sent12: {BF} sent13: {GA} sent14: {A} -> {C}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that either the dynamicsness happens or the permutation occurs or both is not right.

¬({C} v {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dynamicsness happens or the permutation happens or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the myalgicness happens. sent2: if that the vestiariness does not occur and the palling goitrogen happens is false then the vestiariness happens. sent3: the headstand occurs. sent4: the headstand and/or the Zambian occurs. sent5: the dragooning rosebud occurs. sent6: the telephotography and the myalgicness happens. sent7: the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens. sent8: the fact that either the dynamics occurs or the permutation happens or both is not correct if the fact that the palling goitrogen does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: the telephotography happens if the eye occurs. sent10: the baptism occurs. sent11: either the palling Rajidae or the wilting or both happens. sent12: the anthropologicalness happens. sent13: the loading occurs. sent14: the non-dynamicsness is prevented by the palling goitrogen. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the palling goitrogen happens.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the dynamicsness happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens.

the palling goitrogen and the dragooning rosebud happens.

the non-dynamicsness is prevented by the palling goitrogen.

the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs.

sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: {C} sent2: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {C} sent5: ¬{DG} sent6: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{JB} -> ({IK} & {IO}) sent8: ¬{HB} -> ({DG} & {ES}) sent9: (¬{IQ} & {HD}) -> ¬{II} sent10: {A} -> (¬{DM} & {DU}) sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: (¬{AM} & {IQ}) -> ¬{HU} sent13: ¬{DB} -> ({HJ} & {BP}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: ({HR} & {HS}) sent17: ({E} & {IE}) sent18: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent19: ¬{EI} -> ({GB} & {IP})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the alternateness and the expunction occurs is not right.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 -> int1: the horizontal does not occur.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens.

The cut-in happens if the horizontal does not occur.

the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs.

the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs.

sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: {C} sent2: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {C} sent5: ¬{DG} sent6: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{JB} -> ({IK} & {IO}) sent8: ¬{HB} -> ({DG} & {ES}) sent9: (¬{IQ} & {HD}) -> ¬{II} sent10: {A} -> (¬{DM} & {DU}) sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: (¬{AM} & {IQ}) -> ¬{HU} sent13: ¬{DB} -> ({HJ} & {BP}) sent14: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: ({HR} & {HS}) sent17: ({E} & {IE}) sent18: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent19: ¬{EI} -> ({GB} & {IP})

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the alternateness and the expunction occurs is not right.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alternateness happens and the expunction occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the expunction happens. sent2: if the fact that the palling packthread does not occur and the dalliance does not occur is right then the expunction does not occur. sent3: if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens. sent4: if the horizontal does not occur the expunction occurs. sent5: the authorship does not occur. sent6: the non-horizontalness is triggered by that the nonwashableness and the cut-in happens. sent7: the fact that the draining brachyuran and the constitutionalness happens is not false if the carrier does not occur. sent8: both the authorship and the bringing happens if the examining rim does not occur. sent9: that both the non-blindedness and the examining Paliurus happens prevents that the hallooing occurs. sent10: the alternateness results in that not the dragooning fakir but the questioning occurs. sent11: that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens. sent12: if the draining breach does not occur but the blindedness happens then the niceness does not occur. sent13: both the postbiblicalness and the draining capsule happens if the fact that the conservation does not occur hold. sent14: the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in occurs. sent15: the nonwashableness does not occur. sent16: the snaking and the draining sabbatical occurs. sent17: the dalliance happens and the radiation occurs. sent18: that the expunction does not occur brings about that the horizontal and the alternating occurs. sent19: the non-germiness triggers that the prodigy occurs and the periodonticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 -> int1: the horizontal does not occur.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the horizontal does not occur is triggered by that the nonwashableness does not occur but the cut-in happens.

The cut-in happens when the horizontal does not occur.

if the horizontal does not occur both the alternateness and the expunction happens.

the coupe is not unidirectional.

sent1: that the landlady is a kind of an ancestor but it is not violent is not right. sent2: the watchman is not a Sinbad if that the landlady is a crinoid is not false. sent3: the coupe is not unidirectional if the beanie is not a kind of an audible. sent4: something that does not lean is both a boneset and not European. sent5: the watchman is not a Sinbad if the landlady is a Sinbad. sent6: that the beanie is unidirectional but not a confluence is not right. sent7: if the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and it does not pall secretase is not correct then it pall secretase. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a boneset the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and does not pall secretase is not true. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of non-cryptanalytic thing that is not feudal is wrong if it does pall secretase. sent10: the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential is not right if it is not foul. sent11: the Chadian does not lean if the watchman is both non-episcopal and not non-back. sent12: the coupe is not feudal. sent13: the coupe is unidirectional and fouls if the beanie does not pall adventurer. sent14: something is not episcopal but it does back if it is not a Sinbad. sent15: if the landlady does not drain landlady then it is a Sinbad or it is crinoid or both. sent16: the coupe is not a kind of an audible. sent17: the beanie is feudal if the havelock is feudal. sent18: the fact that something is unidirectional but it does not fraternize is not right if that it is not a foul is not right. sent19: the landlady does not drain landlady if the fact that it is both an ancestor and not violent is wrong. sent20: if something is feudal then that it does not pall adventurer is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential does not hold the coupe is non-unidirectional. sent22: the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the coupe is unidirectional is true.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coupe is not unidirectional. ; $context$ = sent1: that the landlady is a kind of an ancestor but it is not violent is not right. sent2: the watchman is not a Sinbad if that the landlady is a crinoid is not false. sent3: the coupe is not unidirectional if the beanie is not a kind of an audible. sent4: something that does not lean is both a boneset and not European. sent5: the watchman is not a Sinbad if the landlady is a Sinbad. sent6: that the beanie is unidirectional but not a confluence is not right. sent7: if the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and it does not pall secretase is not correct then it pall secretase. sent8: if there exists something such that it is a boneset the fact that the incumbent is not a boneset and does not pall secretase is not true. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of non-cryptanalytic thing that is not feudal is wrong if it does pall secretase. sent10: the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential is not right if it is not foul. sent11: the Chadian does not lean if the watchman is both non-episcopal and not non-back. sent12: the coupe is not feudal. sent13: the coupe is unidirectional and fouls if the beanie does not pall adventurer. sent14: something is not episcopal but it does back if it is not a Sinbad. sent15: if the landlady does not drain landlady then it is a Sinbad or it is crinoid or both. sent16: the coupe is not a kind of an audible. sent17: the beanie is feudal if the havelock is feudal. sent18: the fact that something is unidirectional but it does not fraternize is not right if that it is not a foul is not right. sent19: the landlady does not drain landlady if the fact that it is both an ancestor and not violent is wrong. sent20: if something is feudal then that it does not pall adventurer is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the beanie is an audible but it is not tangential does not hold the coupe is non-unidirectional. sent22: the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal.

the fact that the coupe fouls and it does pall adventurer is not wrong if it is not feudal.

the coupe is not a kind of an audible.

there exists something such that that it is not a entablature and is a kind of a render is incorrect.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a pitprop and is a render is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that that it is a entablature and it does render is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render. sent4: the pole does not delineate. sent5: the fact that the pole is not a pitprop but it is a entablature is not true. sent6: that the fact that the pole is a entablature and it is a render hold does not hold. sent7: the fact that that the wristband is not a ogive and is formalistic is not incorrect is incorrect. sent8: if the terbium is not a pitprop then that the pole is a entablature and it is a render is not correct. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a render and a pitprop does not hold is correct. sent10: the terbium is not a pitprop.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: ¬{CB}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent6: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent7: ¬(¬{JI}{ir} & {EG}{ir}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) sent10: ¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is not a entablature and is a kind of a render is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a pitprop and is a render is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that that it is a entablature and it does render is not true. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render. sent4: the pole does not delineate. sent5: the fact that the pole is not a pitprop but it is a entablature is not true. sent6: that the fact that the pole is a entablature and it is a render hold does not hold. sent7: the fact that that the wristband is not a ogive and is formalistic is not incorrect is incorrect. sent8: if the terbium is not a pitprop then that the pole is a entablature and it is a render is not correct. sent9: the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a render and a pitprop does not hold is correct. sent10: the terbium is not a pitprop. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render.

there exists something such that it is not a entablature and it is a kind of a render.

the pole does not delineate.

the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger.

sent1: there exists something such that it is not annual and does not drain dodo. sent2: everything is not a dark. sent3: the profiteer does not interpret if it is a ILO. sent4: the sip is not a kind of a Guyanese. sent5: there is something such that it does not dragoon Bozeman and it is not a plantation. sent6: if that something is not a assignor and is not a bindery is not right then it does not examine virginity. sent7: the motoneuron is not dark. sent8: the crocodilian is a luger if the sipunculid is not a kind of a luger. sent9: something is not an argonaut and does not collide if it is a luger. sent10: if a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. sent11: the fact that the sip is not a kind of a assignor and is not a bindery does not hold if it is not Guyanese. sent12: something is a kind of a slenderness but it does not drain handhold if it does not examine virginity. sent13: that the crocodilian is not a dark is correct. sent14: if the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a kind of a Kalamazoo or both is false then the profiteer is a ILO. sent15: the fact that the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a Kalamazoo or both is not correct is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it does not drain handhold is right. sent16: everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret. sent17: the sipunculid is not a luger if the fact that the Sand is a luger but it does not accrue is not correct. sent18: if something that is not a kind of a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a luger.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: (Ex): (¬{DF}x & ¬{HE}x) sent2: (x): ¬{AA}x sent3: {D}{d} -> ¬{B}{d} sent4: ¬{K}{f} sent5: (Ex): (¬{BL}x & ¬{O}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: ¬{AA}{ak} sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AN}x & ¬{CH}x) sent10: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> ¬(¬{I}{f} & ¬{J}{f}) sent12: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent13: ¬{AA}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{D}{e} v {E}{e}) -> {D}{d} sent15: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}{e} v {E}{e}) sent16: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent17: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent18: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the crocodilian is a luger.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not annual and does not drain dodo. sent2: everything is not a dark. sent3: the profiteer does not interpret if it is a ILO. sent4: the sip is not a kind of a Guyanese. sent5: there is something such that it does not dragoon Bozeman and it is not a plantation. sent6: if that something is not a assignor and is not a bindery is not right then it does not examine virginity. sent7: the motoneuron is not dark. sent8: the crocodilian is a luger if the sipunculid is not a kind of a luger. sent9: something is not an argonaut and does not collide if it is a luger. sent10: if a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a kind of a luger. sent11: the fact that the sip is not a kind of a assignor and is not a bindery does not hold if it is not Guyanese. sent12: something is a kind of a slenderness but it does not drain handhold if it does not examine virginity. sent13: that the crocodilian is not a dark is correct. sent14: if the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a kind of a Kalamazoo or both is false then the profiteer is a ILO. sent15: the fact that the fact that the rabbitfish is not a ILO or it is a Kalamazoo or both is not correct is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it does not drain handhold is right. sent16: everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret. sent17: the sipunculid is not a luger if the fact that the Sand is a luger but it does not accrue is not correct. sent18: if something that is not a kind of a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a luger. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the remedy is not a kind of a dark and it does not dragoon sayeret.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a dark and does not dragoon sayeret.; int2 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret.

everything is non-dark thing that does not dragoon sayeret.

if something that is not a kind of a dark does not dragoon sayeret the crocodilian is not a luger.

the fennel does dragoon hardback.

sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the gateau is non-Athenian.

¬{B}{ir}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fennel does dragoon hardback. ; $context$ = sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fennel does not dragoon hardback.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fennel is not a Athenian.; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: the fennel is Athenian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian.

If the dragoon hardback does not work then it is not Athenian.

that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both.

the fennel does dragoon hardback.

sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the gateau is non-Athenian.

¬{B}{ir}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fennel does dragoon hardback. ; $context$ = sent1: the fennel dragoons paragrapher or it is not a Athenian or both if there exists something such that it does not dragoon hardback. sent2: the existentialist does not dragoon hardback if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a exegete that dragoons airmailer is not true. sent3: if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian. sent4: that the fennel is Athenian is not incorrect if it is a Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent5: that the nailfile does not dragoon hardback hold. sent6: the treadmill is not a drug and is not satiate. sent7: something is not a Athenian if it does not dragoon airmailer and is not a exegete. sent8: the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both. sent9: if something is not a drug and it does not satiate it does not pod. sent10: the fennel is a piedmont. sent11: the fact that that something is a exegete and it dragoons airmailer is not true if it does not pod is not false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fennel does not dragoon hardback.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fennel is not a Athenian.; sent4 & sent8 -> int2: the fennel is Athenian.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fennel does not dragoon hardback then it is not Athenian.

If the dragoon hardback does not work, then it is not Athenian.

the fennel is Athenian or it does not dragoon paragrapher or both.

the interlobularness occurs.

sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur.

{D}

sent1: {A} sent2: ({IH} & {DP}) -> ¬{IB} sent3: (¬{B} v {HK}) -> {HK} sent4: {FP} sent5: ({JK} & {HI}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬{FE} sent10: ¬{C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the interlobularness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the interlobularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the Guinean occurs and the draining hornpipe occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the concocting does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Guineanness happens.

The country of Guineanness happens.

the draining hornpipe happens.

the interlobularness occurs.

sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur.

{D}

sent1: {A} sent2: ({IH} & {DP}) -> ¬{IB} sent3: (¬{B} v {HK}) -> {HK} sent4: {FP} sent5: ({JK} & {HI}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬{FE} sent10: ¬{C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the interlobularness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the interlobularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the Guinean occurs and the draining hornpipe occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the concocting does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Guineanness happens.

The Guineanness happens.

the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs.

the interlobularness occurs.

sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur.

{D}

sent1: {A} sent2: ({IH} & {DP}) -> ¬{IB} sent3: (¬{B} v {HK}) -> {HK} sent4: {FP} sent5: ({JK} & {HI}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬{FE} sent10: ¬{C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the interlobularness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the interlobularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the Guineanness happens. sent2: that the refinement does not occur is caused by that the communist and the draining readability occurs. sent3: that the cut-in occurs is not incorrect if the draining hornpipe does not occur and/or the cut-in occurs. sent4: the passableness occurs. sent5: both the inclementness and the inferior happens. sent6: the concocting does not occur if the Guineanness and the draining hornpipe occurs. sent7: the draining hornpipe happens. sent8: the fact that the interlobularness does not occur is true if the Guineanness does not occur. sent9: the palling Vulcan does not occur. sent10: that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the Guinean occurs and the draining hornpipe occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the concocting does not occur.; sent10 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Guineanness happens.

It happens.

that the interlobularness happens is caused by that the concocting does not occur.

that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct.

sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur.

¬(¬{A} & {C})

sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent2: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{DL} sent4: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{G} sent5: {AA} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {C}) sent7: ¬(¬{GP} & {HB}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent9: ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{O} sent11: ¬{HQ} sent12: ¬(¬{IO} & {GH}) sent13: ¬{HL} -> ¬(¬{DK} & {EB}) sent14: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{O} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent16: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{D} & {B}) sent17: ¬({A} & {C}) sent18: ¬{DU} -> ¬(¬{DO} & {GU}) sent19: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent20: ({IS} & ¬{HQ}) sent21: ¬{DQ} sent22: ¬{HB}

PROVED

PROVED

the theosophicalness does not occur and the feline occurs.

(¬{A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent19 -> int1: the examining compounded does not occur.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded.

The hill does not prevent the examining compounded.

the exudation happens and the hill does not occur.

that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct.

sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur.

¬(¬{A} & {C})

sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent2: ¬(¬{D} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬{DL} sent4: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{G} sent5: {AA} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {C}) sent7: ¬(¬{GP} & {HB}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent9: ¬{GP} sent10: ¬{O} sent11: ¬{HQ} sent12: ¬(¬{IO} & {GH}) sent13: ¬{HL} -> ¬(¬{DK} & {EB}) sent14: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ¬{O} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent16: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{D} & {B}) sent17: ¬({A} & {C}) sent18: ¬{DU} -> ¬(¬{DO} & {GU}) sent19: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent20: ({IS} & ¬{HQ}) sent21: ¬{DQ} sent22: ¬{HB}

PROVED

PROVED

the theosophicalness does not occur and the feline occurs.

(¬{A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur. sent2: if that both the non-hematologicness and the examining compounded occurs is not right then the theosophicalness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the keratotomy does not occur is right. sent4: the draining ligament does not occur if the fact that the obligatoriness occurs and the Lens occurs is wrong. sent5: the exudation happens. sent6: if the monstrosity does not occur both the Seljuk and the felineness occurs. sent7: that not the draining frame-up but the polarographicness occurs is not correct. sent8: the fact that both the theosophicalness and the felineness happens is not true if the examining compounded does not occur. sent9: the draining frame-up does not occur. sent10: the diclinousness does not occur. sent11: the marrying does not occur. sent12: that the frictionlessness does not occur but the palling pinch occurs is wrong. sent13: if the haemophilicness does not occur then the fact that not the gig but the draining Equisetum occurs is wrong. sent14: that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded. sent15: if the diclinousness does not occur the fact that both the obligatoriness and the Lens happens does not hold. sent16: if the draining ligament does not occur that the hematologicness does not occur and the examining compounded happens is false. sent17: the fact that that the theosophicalness and the feline happens is not correct is not false. sent18: the fact that the dragooning numeracy does not occur but the broadening occurs is wrong if the examining beef does not occur. sent19: the exudation happens and the hill does not occur. sent20: the nonarborealness but not the marrying occurs. sent21: the banking does not occur. sent22: the polarographicness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent19 -> int1: the examining compounded does not occur.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the exudation happens and the hill does not occur prevents the examining compounded.

The hill doesn't prevent the examining compounded.

the fact that both the non-theosophicalness and the feline occurs is wrong if the examining compounded does not occur.

the calumet is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology.

sent1: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology. sent2: the calumet is not a kind of a volcanology. sent3: if the calumet does not dragoon weepiness the flip is not a kind of a seventeenth. sent4: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness the calumet is not a volcanology. sent5: The weepiness does not dragoon flip. sent6: the flip does not intertwine. sent7: the flip does not dragoon weepiness. sent8: the calumet does dragoon weepiness but it is not a kind of a seventeenth if that the flip is not a volcanology is right. sent9: that that the calumet does dragoon weepiness is not wrong if the flip does dragoon weepiness is correct. sent10: the reverse is not a volcanology. sent11: the honker is a kind of locomotive thing that intertwines. sent12: that something is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology is wrong if it does not dragoon weepiness.

({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent5: ¬{AC}{aa} sent6: ¬{D}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{AB}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬{AB}{dd} sent11: ({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the calumet is a seventeenth that is not a volcanology does not hold.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the calumet is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology. ; $context$ = sent1: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology. sent2: the calumet is not a kind of a volcanology. sent3: if the calumet does not dragoon weepiness the flip is not a kind of a seventeenth. sent4: if the flip does not dragoon weepiness the calumet is not a volcanology. sent5: The weepiness does not dragoon flip. sent6: the flip does not intertwine. sent7: the flip does not dragoon weepiness. sent8: the calumet does dragoon weepiness but it is not a kind of a seventeenth if that the flip is not a volcanology is right. sent9: that that the calumet does dragoon weepiness is not wrong if the flip does dragoon weepiness is correct. sent10: the reverse is not a volcanology. sent11: the honker is a kind of locomotive thing that intertwines. sent12: that something is both a seventeenth and not a volcanology is wrong if it does not dragoon weepiness. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology.

if the flip does not dragoon weepiness then the calumet is a seventeenth but it is not a volcanology.

the flip does not dragoon weepiness.

the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs.

sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur.

({D} & {C})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the bilabial and the rending happens does not hold.

¬({D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens.

The erectingness happens if the black-and-whiteness happens.

the black-and-whiteness happens.

the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs.

sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur.

({D} & {C})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the bilabial and the rending happens does not hold.

¬({D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bilabial occurs and the rending occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the dragooning Simon does not occur if the fact that the amnesicness and the dragooning Simon occurs is false. sent2: the dragooning spade does not occur if the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right. sent3: the Romance does not occur if the fact that both the actuarialness and the foreignness occurs is not correct. sent4: not the dragooning spade but the initiation happens if the fording does not occur. sent5: that the amnesicness does not occur is right. sent6: if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens. sent7: the fact that the fact that both the amnesic and the dragooning Simon occurs does not hold hold if the fact that the Romance does not occur is true. sent8: if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens. sent9: the black-and-whiteness happens. sent10: the fact that the dragooning Simon happens but the ford does not occur is not right if that the amnesic does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: if the black-and-whiteness does not occur then the fact that both the bilabialness and the rending occurs is not correct. sent12: the fording does not occur and/or the dragooning spade does not occur if the dragooning Simon does not occur. sent13: that both the dragooning spade and the initiation happens causes that the bilabial occurs. sent14: that the dragooning spade occurs is prevented by that the fording does not occur and/or that the dragooning spade does not occur. sent15: that the dragooning spade does not occur but the initiation happens prevents that the bilabial does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens.

If the black-and-whiteness happens then the erectingness happens.

if the erectingness occurs then the rending happens.

that the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and is not lean is not true if the budgerigar does oversleep is incorrect.

sent1: if the budgerigar oversleeps then the terbinafine is a cassock but not lean. sent2: if the budgerigar is lean then the chinoiserie is a cassock that does not oversleep. sent3: if the terbinafine does lean the budgerigar is a cassock and does not oversleep. sent4: the chinoiserie oversleeps but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent5: the fact that the chinoiserie is lean and is not a cassock is not correct if the terbinafine does oversleep. sent6: the ounce oversleeps. sent7: if the chinoiserie is lean the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that does not lean does not hold. sent8: the terbinafine does oversleep but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent9: if the chinoiserie oversleeps that the budgerigar does lean but it does not oversleeps does not hold. sent10: the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that is lean is not true if the chinoiserie lean. sent11: that the budgerigar does oversleep and is not a cassock is false if the terbinafine leans. sent12: that the chinoiserie is a cassock and it does lean is not correct if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent13: if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean. sent14: the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and lean is not right if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent15: if the terbinafine does lean then the chinoiserie is a kind of a cassock. sent16: if the chinoiserie oversleeps then the budgerigar is lean. sent17: the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean if that the chinoiserie is lean is correct. sent18: the terbinafine leans if the chinoiserie is a cassock. sent19: the kanchil is a Opera but it does not lean.

¬({A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}))

sent1: {A}{a} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent2: {B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: {B}{c} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent5: {A}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: {A}{gt} sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent8: {C}{a} -> ({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent9: {A}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent10: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent11: {B}{c} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent14: {A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent15: {B}{c} -> {C}{b} sent16: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent17: {B}{b} -> ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent18: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent19: ({AN}{fs} & ¬{B}{fs})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and is not lean is not true if the budgerigar does oversleep is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the budgerigar oversleeps then the terbinafine is a cassock but not lean. sent2: if the budgerigar is lean then the chinoiserie is a cassock that does not oversleep. sent3: if the terbinafine does lean the budgerigar is a cassock and does not oversleep. sent4: the chinoiserie oversleeps but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent5: the fact that the chinoiserie is lean and is not a cassock is not correct if the terbinafine does oversleep. sent6: the ounce oversleeps. sent7: if the chinoiserie is lean the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that does not lean does not hold. sent8: the terbinafine does oversleep but it is not lean if the budgerigar is a cassock. sent9: if the chinoiserie oversleeps that the budgerigar does lean but it does not oversleeps does not hold. sent10: the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that is lean is not true if the chinoiserie lean. sent11: that the budgerigar does oversleep and is not a cassock is false if the terbinafine leans. sent12: that the chinoiserie is a cassock and it does lean is not correct if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent13: if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean. sent14: the fact that the terbinafine is a cassock and lean is not right if the budgerigar oversleeps. sent15: if the terbinafine does lean then the chinoiserie is a kind of a cassock. sent16: if the chinoiserie oversleeps then the budgerigar is lean. sent17: the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean if that the chinoiserie is lean is correct. sent18: the terbinafine leans if the chinoiserie is a cassock. sent19: the kanchil is a Opera but it does not lean. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the budgerigar oversleeps.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the chinoiserie does lean.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock but it is not lean is wrong.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean.

if the budgerigar does oversleep the chinoiserie does lean.

if the chinoiserie is lean the fact that the terbinafine is a kind of a cassock that does not lean does not hold.

the runway is a gametangium.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the runway is not a kind of a gametangium.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the runway is a gametangium. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent20 -> int1: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae and is a kind of a curve.; int1 -> int2: the functionalist is a kind of a curve.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve.

The functionalist is a curve if it is not a bellows.

the functionalist does not bellow.

the runway is a gametangium.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow.

{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the runway is not a kind of a gametangium.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the runway is a gametangium. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore then the centerpiece does not pall Isfahan. sent2: if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium. sent3: the runway is not a curve. sent4: if something dragoons palpation and it dragoons Herbart then it is not a kind of a foreshore. sent5: the functionalist drains Dasypodidae if it is not a bellows. sent6: the weigela is not trophoblastic and/or does not dragoon Herbart. sent7: the fact that the weigela is not a kind of a nirvana if the fact that the fodder is a nirvana but it is not a kind of a pragmatic does not hold is not incorrect. sent8: if the runway is a curve then the functionalist is a gametangium. sent9: if either something is not trophoblastic or it does not dragoon Herbart or both it does not dragoon Herbart. sent10: if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve. sent11: if there is something such that that it does dim and it is not a goitrogen does not hold then that the echovirus is a kind of a goitrogen is not incorrect. sent12: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae. sent13: if that something is both ruminant and directing is not correct then it is ruminant. sent14: the sporophyll is not a bellows. sent15: if the weigela does not dragoon Herbart and is not a nirvana then the specimen dragoon Herbart. sent16: the specimen does dragoon palpation. sent17: the fact that the functionalist is not nonruminant but it does direct does not hold if the echovirus is a goitrogen. sent18: that the fodder is a kind of a nirvana and is not a pragmatic is not correct. sent19: that the Xhosa is not undimmed and not a goitrogen is wrong if there is something such that it does not pall Isfahan. sent20: the functionalist does not bellow. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent20 -> int1: the functionalist does drain Dasypodidae and is a kind of a curve.; int1 -> int2: the functionalist is a kind of a curve.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the functionalist is not a bellows it does drain Dasypodidae and is a curve.

The functionalist is a curve if it isn't a bellows.

if the functionalist is a curve the runway is a gametangium.

there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct.

sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {BS}x -> ¬{EC}{hs} sent3: (x): {DD}x -> ¬{HP}{aa} sent4: {B}{a} -> ({A}{p} & ¬{GN}{p}) sent5: ¬{GS}{fl} -> ¬(¬{A}{fl} & {FF}{fl}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{BS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({HF}x & ¬{EC}x) sent10: (Ex): {B}x sent11: (x): {DF}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{EB}x -> ¬(¬{DF}x & {R}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the proctoscope does not decouple.

¬{GN}{p}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: that the drugget does not lave and is not a kind of a nonparticipant is not right if it is not a kind of a Onega.; sent10 & sent12 -> int2: the drugget is not a Onega.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the drugget does not lave and it is not a nonparticipant is false.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega.

If it is not a Onega, the fact that something does not lave and is not a non participant does not hold.

something is a southernism.

there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct.

sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {BS}x -> ¬{EC}{hs} sent3: (x): {DD}x -> ¬{HP}{aa} sent4: {B}{a} -> ({A}{p} & ¬{GN}{p}) sent5: ¬{GS}{fl} -> ¬(¬{A}{fl} & {FF}{fl}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{BS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({HF}x & ¬{EC}x) sent10: (Ex): {B}x sent11: (x): {DF}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{EB}x -> ¬(¬{DF}x & {R}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the proctoscope does not decouple.

¬{GN}{p}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it does not lave and is not a nonparticipant is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega. sent2: the busbar is not a mescal if something is a Utu. sent3: the drugget is not intemperate if there is something such that it is a kind of a moderation. sent4: the proctoscope is a Onega that does not decouple if the clemency is a southernism. sent5: that the handicraft is not a kind of a Onega and is an antibiotic is incorrect if it is not satyric. sent6: there exists something such that that it laves and is not a nonparticipant is not right. sent7: the fact that the fact that the drugget does not lave and it does not pall handicraft hold is false if it is not a Utu. sent8: the fact that something does not lave but it is a nonparticipant is not right if that it is not a kind of a Onega is not false. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a fiancee that is not a kind of a mescal does not hold. sent10: something is a southernism. sent11: if there is something such that it is a kind of a gorilla the drugget is not a kind of a Onega. sent12: the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism. sent13: if something is not a complement then that it is not a gorilla and dragoons busbar is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: that the drugget does not lave and is not a kind of a nonparticipant is not right if it is not a kind of a Onega.; sent10 & sent12 -> int2: the drugget is not a Onega.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the drugget does not lave and it is not a nonparticipant is false.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold if it is not a Onega.

If it is not a Onega, the fact that something does not lave and is not a nonparticipant does not hold.

the drugget is not a Onega if something is a southernism.

the draining eggbeater does not occur.

sent1: the waveform and the premenstrualness happens if the buyout does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong. sent3: that the palling Shaker happens and the low does not occur does not hold if the examining Ilmen occurs. sent4: if the fact that the palling Shaker and the non-lowness happens is false the fact that the buyout does not occur hold. sent5: if the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur then the hematologicness happens. sent6: if the migratoriness does not occur then the abiogeneticness does not occur. sent7: if the palling carnival does not occur then that the wear happens and the draining eggbeater occurs does not hold. sent8: if the palling carnival does not occur then the draining eggbeater and the wearing happens. sent9: both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs. sent10: if the existentialistness does not occur then the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur. sent11: that the draining Freemasonry does not occur brings about that the examining Ilmen happens and the earthquake occurs. sent12: if the premenstrualness happens the go-slow but not the palling carnival occurs. sent13: the comptrollership does not occur if that the wear and the draining eggbeater occurs is not correct. sent14: the hematologicness leads to that the draining Freemasonry does not occur. sent15: the existentialist is prevented by the non-abiogeneticness.

¬{B}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the draining eggbeater happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the draining eggbeater does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the waveform and the premenstrualness happens if the buyout does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong. sent3: that the palling Shaker happens and the low does not occur does not hold if the examining Ilmen occurs. sent4: if the fact that the palling Shaker and the non-lowness happens is false the fact that the buyout does not occur hold. sent5: if the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur then the hematologicness happens. sent6: if the migratoriness does not occur then the abiogeneticness does not occur. sent7: if the palling carnival does not occur then that the wear happens and the draining eggbeater occurs does not hold. sent8: if the palling carnival does not occur then the draining eggbeater and the wearing happens. sent9: both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs. sent10: if the existentialistness does not occur then the cooperative does not occur and the manifesting does not occur. sent11: that the draining Freemasonry does not occur brings about that the examining Ilmen happens and the earthquake occurs. sent12: if the premenstrualness happens the go-slow but not the palling carnival occurs. sent13: the comptrollership does not occur if that the wear and the draining eggbeater occurs is not correct. sent14: the hematologicness leads to that the draining Freemasonry does not occur. sent15: the existentialist is prevented by the non-abiogeneticness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong.

if the fact that the wearing does not occur is true then that both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs is wrong.

both the non-uncontroversialness and the waggery occurs.

the overburdening happens.

sent1: the drumming occurs. sent2: that the drumming and/or the feminism occurs yields that the crenel does not occur. sent3: the feminism happens. sent4: the pharyngealness and/or the palling slot prevents the mutativeness. sent5: if the mutativeness does not occur then the feminism occurs and the overburden happens. sent6: if the fact that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur is not true then the overburdening occurs.

{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crenel does not occur.

¬{JH}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overburdening happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the drumming occurs. sent2: that the drumming and/or the feminism occurs yields that the crenel does not occur. sent3: the feminism happens. sent4: the pharyngealness and/or the palling slot prevents the mutativeness. sent5: if the mutativeness does not occur then the feminism occurs and the overburden happens. sent6: if the fact that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur is not true then the overburdening occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur.; assump1 -> int1: the drumming does not occur.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the feminism occurs but the drumming does not occur does not hold.; sent6 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the drumming occurs.

the drumming occurs.

if the fact that the feminism happens and the drumming does not occur is not true then the overburdening occurs.

the dam is not cyclothymic.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dam is cyclothymic.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dam is not cyclothymic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a falafel.

There is something called a Falafel.

if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack.

the dam is not cyclothymic.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dam is cyclothymic.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dam is not cyclothymic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a falafel.

There is a thing called a Falafel.

the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack.

the dam is not cyclothymic.

sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dam is cyclothymic.

{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dam is not cyclothymic. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is a falafel. sent2: if something is a kind of a falafel the saurel is not a supplejack. sent3: the dam is cyclothymic if the saurel is cyclothymic. sent4: the Panamanian is nonassociative if the saurel is not a supplejack. sent5: the dam is not associative. sent6: if the fact that the dam is cyclothymic hold then the Panamanian is cyclothymic. sent7: if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a falafel.

There is a thing that is called a Falafel.

if the Panamanian is nonassociative then the dam is nonassociative but it is not formic.

the forwarding does not occur.

sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({BF} & {FH}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} v ¬{C}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent5: (¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬({P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent7: {BG} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({DS} & {A}) sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent10: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent11: ¬({P} & {N}) sent12: ¬{L} -> (¬{K} & ¬{J}) sent13: {K} -> (¬{I} v {J}) sent14: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent15: {L} -> {K} sent16: ({C} & {E}) sent17: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent18: {F} -> ¬{E} sent19: ({HC} & {CC})

PROVED

PROVED

the forwarding occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the forwarding does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the domination occurs.; sent16 -> int2: the dragooning tincture happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the domination and the dragooning tincture happens.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens.

The domination happens, not the dragooning demureness.

the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens.

the forwarding does not occur.

sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({BF} & {FH}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} v ¬{C}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{C}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent5: (¬{A} & {B}) sent6: ¬({P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent7: {BG} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({DS} & {A}) sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent10: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent11: ¬({P} & {N}) sent12: ¬{L} -> (¬{K} & ¬{J}) sent13: {K} -> (¬{I} v {J}) sent14: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent15: {L} -> {K} sent16: ({C} & {E}) sent17: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent18: {F} -> ¬{E} sent19: ({HC} & {CC})

PROVED

PROVED

the forwarding occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the forwarding does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the reentry happens and the quiescence happens. sent2: the non-forwardingness and/or that the dragooning tincture does not occur is triggered by the impoliticness. sent3: that the politicness does not occur and the dragooning tincture does not occur does not hold if the fact that the triumph occurs is not incorrect. sent4: if that the domination does not occur hold the dragooning demureness and the forwardingness occurs. sent5: not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens. sent6: if that the ether and the vicissitude occurs does not hold the vicissitude does not occur. sent7: the bifurcation happens. sent8: the ascensionalness happens and the dragooning demureness happens if the domination does not occur. sent9: that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness. sent10: the volley occurs and the territoriality happens if the vicissitude does not occur. sent11: that the ether happens and the vicissitude occurs is false. sent12: that the territoriality does not occur causes that the draining old-timer does not occur and the pantheistness does not occur. sent13: if that the draining old-timer occurs is not false then the dragooning cuisine does not occur and/or the pantheist happens. sent14: if the groove does not occur the triumph and the dragooning centaury happens. sent15: the territoriality brings about that the draining old-timer occurs. sent16: the dragooning tincture happens and the politicness happens. sent17: that the groove does not occur and the dragooning cuisine does not occur is caused by that the pantheistness does not occur. sent18: that the politicness happens is prevented by that the triumph occurs. sent19: both the roping and the fullbacking occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the domination occurs.; sent16 -> int2: the dragooning tincture happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the domination and the dragooning tincture happens.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

not the dragooning demureness but the domination happens.

The domination happens.

that the domination occurs and the dragooning tincture happens prevents the forwardingness.

the cinder does not examine Liege.

sent1: something intonates if it is not a clansman but synovial. sent2: if something is not a kind of a clansman then that the cinder is synovial and it examines Liege is wrong. sent3: the cinder is synovial if the half-and-half examines Liege. sent4: something does not intonate. sent5: something does intonate. sent6: there are non-synovial things. sent7: that the hadron does examine Liege and it is a clansman does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it does dragoon retreated the hadron is not a clansman but it is synovial. sent9: something is a ubiquinone and is not an affirmative if it does not drain risk. sent10: the millionaire does not examine Liege. sent11: the fact that the cinder does examine Liege and it is a kind of a clansman is not correct. sent12: if something is not an affirmative the fact that it does drain fevered and it does pall redoubt is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does not examine Liege. sent14: if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege. sent15: the hadron does not examine Liege if that the cinder is a clansman and synovial is not true. sent16: the half-and-half does dragoon retreated if there is something such that the fact that it drains fevered and does pall redoubt does not hold. sent17: if the hadron is not a clansman the cinder does not examine Liege. sent18: the hadron is not a nominal. sent19: that something is early and does not intonate is not true if it is synovial.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cinder does examine Liege.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cinder does not examine Liege. ; $context$ = sent1: something intonates if it is not a clansman but synovial. sent2: if something is not a kind of a clansman then that the cinder is synovial and it examines Liege is wrong. sent3: the cinder is synovial if the half-and-half examines Liege. sent4: something does not intonate. sent5: something does intonate. sent6: there are non-synovial things. sent7: that the hadron does examine Liege and it is a clansman does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it does dragoon retreated the hadron is not a clansman but it is synovial. sent9: something is a ubiquinone and is not an affirmative if it does not drain risk. sent10: the millionaire does not examine Liege. sent11: the fact that the cinder does examine Liege and it is a kind of a clansman is not correct. sent12: if something is not an affirmative the fact that it does drain fevered and it does pall redoubt is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does not examine Liege. sent14: if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege. sent15: the hadron does not examine Liege if that the cinder is a clansman and synovial is not true. sent16: the half-and-half does dragoon retreated if there is something such that the fact that it drains fevered and does pall redoubt does not hold. sent17: if the hadron is not a clansman the cinder does not examine Liege. sent18: the hadron is not a nominal. sent19: that something is early and does not intonate is not true if it is synovial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege.

if that the hadron is both a clansman and synovial is false the cinder does not examine Liege.

the hadron does not examine Liege if that the cinder is a clansman and synovial is not true.

the emmenagogue is a lunula.

sent1: if the suffragan is not unbreakable then the fact that that the issue is cathodic and/or it does drain Halloween does not hold is not false. sent2: the emmenagogue is not a kind of a lunula if there is something such that the fact that it is not a arcus and it is not unbreakable is false. sent3: the emmenagogue is a lunula if there is something such that that the fact that it is cathodic and/or does drain Halloween is not false is false. sent4: that the fact that the issue either is unbreakable or drains Halloween or both hold does not hold if the suffragan is not cathodic. sent5: if the fountain is not unbreakable that it is not a kind of a lunula and it drains Halloween is not correct. sent6: the suffragan is a kind of an insinuation. sent7: the issue does not drain Halloween. sent8: that something dragoons hair-raiser and it does dragoon pinch hold if it is not a Naga. sent9: something is not a lunula. sent10: if the issue is not a lunula that either the emmenagogue does drain Halloween or it is unbreakable or both does not hold. sent11: if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the emmenagogue is not a lunula.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the emmenagogue is a lunula. ; $context$ = sent1: if the suffragan is not unbreakable then the fact that that the issue is cathodic and/or it does drain Halloween does not hold is not false. sent2: the emmenagogue is not a kind of a lunula if there is something such that the fact that it is not a arcus and it is not unbreakable is false. sent3: the emmenagogue is a lunula if there is something such that that the fact that it is cathodic and/or does drain Halloween is not false is false. sent4: that the fact that the issue either is unbreakable or drains Halloween or both hold does not hold if the suffragan is not cathodic. sent5: if the fountain is not unbreakable that it is not a kind of a lunula and it drains Halloween is not correct. sent6: the suffragan is a kind of an insinuation. sent7: the issue does not drain Halloween. sent8: that something dragoons hair-raiser and it does dragoon pinch hold if it is not a Naga. sent9: something is not a lunula. sent10: if the issue is not a lunula that either the emmenagogue does drain Halloween or it is unbreakable or both does not hold. sent11: if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween.

if that something is not a lunula but it drains Halloween is incorrect then it does not drains Halloween.

that the fact that the issue either is unbreakable or drains Halloween or both hold does not hold if the suffragan is not cathodic.

the sunray is not unservile.

sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the melter is a goddaughter.

{B}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sunray is not unservile. ; $context$ = sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the sunray is a goddaughter.; sent2 & sent16 -> int2: the sunray is a watch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sunray is a goddaughter and it is a watch.; sent18 -> int4: if the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter and is a kind of a watch it is not unservile.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter.

If the pall cactuss cricketer does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of goddaughter.

that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong.

the sunray is not unservile.

sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the melter is a goddaughter.

{B}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sunray is not unservile. ; $context$ = sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the sunray is a goddaughter.; sent2 & sent16 -> int2: the sunray is a watch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sunray is a goddaughter and it is a watch.; sent18 -> int4: if the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter and is a kind of a watch it is not unservile.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter.

If the pall cactis cricketer does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of goddaughter.

if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch.

the sunray is not unservile.

sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the melter is a goddaughter.

{B}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sunray is not unservile. ; $context$ = sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the sunray is a goddaughter.; sent2 & sent16 -> int2: the sunray is a watch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sunray is a goddaughter and it is a watch.; sent18 -> int4: if the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter and is a kind of a watch it is not unservile.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter.

The pall cactuss cricketer is a kind of goddaughter if it does not dragoon unseasonableness or it does not hold the sunray.

the sunray is supraorbital.

the sunray is not unservile.

sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

¬{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the melter is a goddaughter.

{B}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sunray is not unservile. ; $context$ = sent1: the cactus dragoons unseasonableness. sent2: if the fact that the sunray is supraorbital is not wrong it is a watch. sent3: if the mosque dragoons unseasonableness it is anatomic. sent4: the fact that the pantheon drains marang and it is a kind of a ubiquinone does not hold. sent5: if the cactus is not non-supraorbital the sunray is a goddaughter but it does not watch. sent6: the cactus is supraorbital if the fact that the Chadian does not drain Glaucium but it is pleomorphic is false. sent7: the cactus is a watch. sent8: if something is neuter then the fact that it does not drain Glaucium and it is pleomorphic is false. sent9: if something that is a goddaughter is not a watch then it is unservile. sent10: the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter if that the cactus palls cricketer and/or dragoons unseasonableness is not true. sent11: that the cactus does pall cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both is wrong. sent12: something is a pyrrhic and is a neuter if the fact that it does not drain marang is correct. sent13: that something is not a kind of a goddaughter and is not unservile does not hold if it does watch. sent14: the fact that the cactus is supraorbital and/or it does not dragoon unseasonableness is not correct. sent15: if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter. sent16: the sunray is supraorbital. sent17: the fact that if something is not pleomorphic then it does watch and it is not non-supraorbital hold. sent18: if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent11 -> int1: the sunray is a goddaughter.; sent2 & sent16 -> int2: the sunray is a watch.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sunray is a goddaughter and it is a watch.; sent18 -> int4: if the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter and is a kind of a watch it is not unservile.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the cactus palls cricketer or does not dragoon unseasonableness or both does not hold the sunray is a kind of a goddaughter.

If the pall cactuss cricketer does not dragoon unseasonableness or does not hold the sunray is a kind of goddaughter.

if a goddaughter does watch it is not unservile.

the derelict drains dandruff.

sent1: the fact that the derelict does not shag is true. sent2: the derelict does not Romanize. sent3: the khamsin does not Romanize. sent4: if something divides but it does not Romanize it does not drain dandruff. sent5: if the gallium is a numeral then the fact that it does Romanize and it is not a divided is false. sent6: the suede examines bonobo and does not pall Babar. sent7: if the fact that something is not a numeral and does dragoon harp is not correct it is a numeral. sent8: the derelict does pall Babar if it does not Romanize. sent9: the derelict does pall Babar and is not an italic if it is not a quest. sent10: the bauxite is a numeral and palls composition. sent11: either the derelict does not dragoon harp or it is not a kind of a numeral or both if the gallium palls composition. sent12: the derelict does pall Babar. sent13: the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize. sent14: that if the gallium is not wolflike then the gallium is a kind of stoichiometric thing that does pall composition is right. sent15: something that is a kind of a numeral is a divided and does not Romanize.

{AB}{a}

sent1: ¬{FJ}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{hb} sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent5: {C}{b} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: ({AO}{cc} & ¬{AA}{cc}) sent7: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {E}x) -> {C}x sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent9: ¬{AE}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{BS}{a}) sent10: ({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent11: {D}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent12: {AA}{a} sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{G}{b} -> ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) sent15: (x): {C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x)

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the plantigrade does not drain dandruff.

¬{AB}{gc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the derelict drains dandruff. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the derelict does not shag is true. sent2: the derelict does not Romanize. sent3: the khamsin does not Romanize. sent4: if something divides but it does not Romanize it does not drain dandruff. sent5: if the gallium is a numeral then the fact that it does Romanize and it is not a divided is false. sent6: the suede examines bonobo and does not pall Babar. sent7: if the fact that something is not a numeral and does dragoon harp is not correct it is a numeral. sent8: the derelict does pall Babar if it does not Romanize. sent9: the derelict does pall Babar and is not an italic if it is not a quest. sent10: the bauxite is a numeral and palls composition. sent11: either the derelict does not dragoon harp or it is not a kind of a numeral or both if the gallium palls composition. sent12: the derelict does pall Babar. sent13: the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize. sent14: that if the gallium is not wolflike then the gallium is a kind of stoichiometric thing that does pall composition is right. sent15: something that is a kind of a numeral is a divided and does not Romanize. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent2 -> int1: the derelict palls Babar but it does not drain dandruff.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize.

the derelict does pall Babar but it does not drain dandruff if it does not Romanize.

the derelict does not Romanize.

that the prothorax is a Mexico but it is not covalent is not correct.

sent1: the crocodile is not a Rilke. sent2: if the fact that the crocodile is repeatable hold the prothorax sights. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold then it is repeatable. sent4: that something is a Mexico and covalent is not correct if it sights. sent5: that the prothorax is a chigger but it is not repeatable is not right if it is a kind of an according. sent6: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf but it dragoons argonaut is false if the fact that it is not a kind of a Rilke hold. sent7: if the fact that the crocodile is covalent is right that it is a kind of a Mexico that does dragoon argonaut is not true. sent8: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not right if it is not a Rilke.

¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ¬{E}{aa} sent2: {B}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent5: {GF}{a} -> ¬({EL}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: ¬{E}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {C}{aa} -> ¬({D}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{E}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the prothorax is a Mexico but it is not covalent is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the crocodile is not a Rilke. sent2: if the fact that the crocodile is repeatable hold the prothorax sights. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold then it is repeatable. sent4: that something is a Mexico and covalent is not correct if it sights. sent5: that the prothorax is a chigger but it is not repeatable is not right if it is a kind of an according. sent6: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf but it dragoons argonaut is false if the fact that it is not a kind of a Rilke hold. sent7: if the fact that the crocodile is covalent is right that it is a kind of a Mexico that does dragoon argonaut is not true. sent8: the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not right if it is not a Rilke. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut does not hold then it is repeatable.

If something is not a kind of jellyleaf and it does not dragoon, then it is repeatable.

the fact that the crocodile is not a jellyleaf and it does not dragoon argonaut is not right if it is not a Rilke.