Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection.

sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand.

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

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{DR}x & {HJ}x) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: ({AO}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: {DG}{ad} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {D}x) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent19: {D}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent20: (Ex): {DD}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent22: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent23: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent24: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent25: {FF}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exhaust is a factory and does dragoon disconnection is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand. ; $proof$ =

sent24 -> int1: if the fact that the exhaust is not a armlet and is punitive is not right then it is a factory.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that that the exhaust is not a kind of a armlet and is not non-punitive does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the exhaust is a factory.; sent14 & sent18 -> int4: either the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both.; int4 & sent10 & sent19 -> int5: the fact that the exhaust does dragoon disconnection is right.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory.

If something is not a kind of armlet but is punitive, then it is a factory.

the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false.

the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection.

sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand.

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

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{DR}x & {HJ}x) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: ({AO}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: {DG}{ad} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {D}x) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent19: {D}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent20: (Ex): {DD}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent22: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent23: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent24: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent25: {FF}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exhaust is a factory and does dragoon disconnection is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand. ; $proof$ =

sent24 -> int1: if the fact that the exhaust is not a armlet and is punitive is not right then it is a factory.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that that the exhaust is not a kind of a armlet and is not non-punitive does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the exhaust is a factory.; sent14 & sent18 -> int4: either the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both.; int4 & sent10 & sent19 -> int5: the fact that the exhaust does dragoon disconnection is right.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory.

If something is not a kind of armlet but it is punitive, then it is a factory.

the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection.

the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection.

sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand.

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

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{DR}x & {HJ}x) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: ({AO}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: {DG}{ad} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {D}x) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent19: {D}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent20: (Ex): {DD}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent22: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent23: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent24: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent25: {FF}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exhaust is a factory and does dragoon disconnection is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand. ; $proof$ =

sent24 -> int1: if the fact that the exhaust is not a armlet and is punitive is not right then it is a factory.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that that the exhaust is not a kind of a armlet and is not non-punitive does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the exhaust is a factory.; sent14 & sent18 -> int4: either the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both.; int4 & sent10 & sent19 -> int5: the fact that the exhaust does dragoon disconnection is right.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory.

It is a factory if something is not a kind of armlet but it is punitive.

the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection.

the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection.

sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand.

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

sent1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{DR}x & {HJ}x) sent3: {B}{a} sent4: ¬({G}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent12: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x sent13: ({AO}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: (Ex): {A}x sent15: {DG}{ad} sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x v {D}x) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{a} v {D}{a}) sent19: {D}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent20: (Ex): {DD}x sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) -> {B}x sent22: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent23: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent24: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent25: {FF}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the exhaust is a factory and does dragoon disconnection is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the exhaust is a kind of a factory that dragoons disconnection. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is a see then that the eosinophil is not a ritonavir but a clarion is false. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is not muscular but a torturer. sent3: the outlier is a kind of a factory. sent4: the outlier does not clarion if that the trooper is wolflike and it clarion does not hold. sent5: the exhaust is not logarithmic if that the outlier is not logarithmic or it does pall eosinophil or both is not correct. sent6: the outlier is punitive if the exhaust is punitive. sent7: that there is something such that it is a see is true. sent8: that that the outlier is not a factory but it does dragoon disconnection is wrong is not wrong. sent9: there exists nothing that is not a armlet and is punitive. sent10: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the outlier dragoons disconnection. sent11: the exhaust is a factory if it is a armlet. sent12: something is a factory if it is a armlet. sent13: the outlier is either bicameral or punitive or both. sent14: the fact that there is something such that that it does not dragoon disconnection is false is not false. sent15: the amphidiploid is annalistic. sent16: that either something is not logarithmic or it palls eosinophil or both is false if it is not a clarion. sent17: if something is not logarithmic that it is a kind of a factory and it does dragoon disconnection is not right. sent18: the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both if somethings do dragoon disconnection. sent19: the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold. sent20: there is something such that that it is a kind of a utahraptor hold. sent21: the fact that something is a factory hold if the fact that it does not pall eosinophil and dragoons disconnection is not true. sent22: there is nothing that is a armlet and punitive. sent23: the fact that the exhaust is a kind of a armlet that is punitive is not correct. sent24: if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory. sent25: the exhaust does pall analysand. ; $proof$ =

sent24 -> int1: if the fact that the exhaust is not a armlet and is punitive is not right then it is a factory.; sent9 -> int2: the fact that that the exhaust is not a kind of a armlet and is not non-punitive does not hold is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the exhaust is a factory.; sent14 & sent18 -> int4: either the outlier does dragoon disconnection or it does pall eosinophil or both.; int4 & sent10 & sent19 -> int5: the fact that the exhaust does dragoon disconnection is right.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a armlet but it is punitive does not hold then it is a factory.

If something is not a kind of armlet but is a punishment, then it is a factory.

the exhaust dragoons disconnection if the fact that the outlier does not pall eosinophil does not hold.

the sandstone is wieldy and/or it is a kind of a Calais.

sent1: if the hosteller dragoons planetarium but it does not pall diminutiveness the sandstone is a Calais. sent2: that the hosteller does dragoon planetarium is true. sent3: the hosteller dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness if the warehouse does dragoon milliampere. sent4: the sandstone is adrenocortical thing that is a kind of a sternness. sent5: the fact that the warehouse is a pun is true. sent6: if the sandstone is a Calais then the hosteller is a kind of wieldy thing that does not pall diminutiveness. sent7: the hosteller is wieldy if the sandstone dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness. sent8: that the tequila does dragoon planetarium is correct. sent9: if the warehouse dragoons milliampere the hosteller does dragoon planetarium. sent10: the hosteller does dragoon milliampere. sent11: the sandstone does dragoon milliampere. sent12: the hosteller is wieldy and does dragoon planetarium. sent13: the warehouse palls diminutiveness. sent14: the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere if there is something such that the fact that it is not a paraldehyde and does dragoon milliampere is wrong. sent15: the baobab either dragoons ACTH or palls diminutiveness or both. sent16: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a paraldehyde and it dragoons milliampere is wrong. sent17: the sandstone is a kind of a Israeli but it does not pall diminutiveness. sent18: the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic. sent19: if the sandstone does dragoon planetarium then the hosteller does pall diminutiveness but it is not a Calais. sent20: the fact that something is wieldy and/or it is a Calais does not hold if it does not pun. sent21: the hosteller does pall diminutiveness if the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere and dragoons planetarium.

({F}{c} v {E}{c})

sent1: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent2: {D}{b} sent3: {B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent4: ({HT}{c} & {JI}{c}) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {E}{c} -> ({F}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent7: ({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {F}{b} sent8: {D}{it} sent9: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent10: {B}{b} sent11: {B}{c} sent12: ({F}{b} & {D}{b}) sent13: {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{J}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}{d} sent15: ({P}{gs} v {C}{gs}) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{J}x & {B}x) sent17: ({JE}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent18: ({FS}{aq} & {DA}{aq}) sent19: {D}{c} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent20: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({F}x v {E}x) sent21: (¬{B}{d} & {D}{d}) -> {C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the sandstone is wieldy or it is a Calais or both is not correct.

¬({F}{c} v {E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sandstone is wieldy and/or it is a kind of a Calais. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hosteller dragoons planetarium but it does not pall diminutiveness the sandstone is a Calais. sent2: that the hosteller does dragoon planetarium is true. sent3: the hosteller dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness if the warehouse does dragoon milliampere. sent4: the sandstone is adrenocortical thing that is a kind of a sternness. sent5: the fact that the warehouse is a pun is true. sent6: if the sandstone is a Calais then the hosteller is a kind of wieldy thing that does not pall diminutiveness. sent7: the hosteller is wieldy if the sandstone dragoons planetarium and does not pall diminutiveness. sent8: that the tequila does dragoon planetarium is correct. sent9: if the warehouse dragoons milliampere the hosteller does dragoon planetarium. sent10: the hosteller does dragoon milliampere. sent11: the sandstone does dragoon milliampere. sent12: the hosteller is wieldy and does dragoon planetarium. sent13: the warehouse palls diminutiveness. sent14: the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere if there is something such that the fact that it is not a paraldehyde and does dragoon milliampere is wrong. sent15: the baobab either dragoons ACTH or palls diminutiveness or both. sent16: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a paraldehyde and it dragoons milliampere is wrong. sent17: the sandstone is a kind of a Israeli but it does not pall diminutiveness. sent18: the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic. sent19: if the sandstone does dragoon planetarium then the hosteller does pall diminutiveness but it is not a Calais. sent20: the fact that something is wieldy and/or it is a Calais does not hold if it does not pun. sent21: the hosteller does pall diminutiveness if the contortionist does not dragoon milliampere and dragoons planetarium. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic.

the advocate is a kind of a curved that is aphetic.

the sandstone is a kind of a Israeli but it does not pall diminutiveness.

the fact that the fact that the fact that the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both is true does not hold is right.

sent1: the fact that something does drain sayeret and/or it does not drain bombardment is not correct if it is thalamocortical. sent2: the column is not diplomatic if either the natatorium does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both. sent3: if something is microeconomic then the onomancer is thalamocortical and/or it is not a bigoted. sent4: something is thalamocortical. sent5: there exists something such that it does drain sayeret. sent6: there exists something such that it drains bombardment. sent7: something dragoons toenail if that it drains harp and it is not a catfish is not right. sent8: that the column does drain harp and is not a catfish is not right if it does not dragoon surplice. sent9: the column is a kind of a Scandinavian and it is a kind of a chic. sent10: either something does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both if it is not a prospector. sent11: the natatorium is not a kind of a Ichyostega. sent12: the fact that the column does not dragoon surplice is true if it is a Scandinavian and it is a chic. sent13: if something that does dragoon toenail is not diplomatic it does not burrow. sent14: the onomancer does drain sayeret or does drain bombardment or both if something is thalamocortical. sent15: either the Iowan does drain bombardment or it is not a fettle or both. sent16: the onomancer drains sayeret and/or does drain bombardment. sent17: the natatorium palls yarder if there is something such that it dragoons sternness and it detoxes. sent18: the fact that something does dragoon sternness and is a detox is not false. sent19: the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both if there exists something such that it is thalamocortical. sent20: something is not a kind of a prospector if it palls yarder and it is not a kind of a Ichyostega.

¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent2: (¬{G}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent3: (x): {AQ}x -> ({A}{a} v ¬{BM}{a}) sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: (Ex): {C}x sent7: (x): ¬({J}x & ¬{I}x) -> {F}x sent8: ¬{O}{b} -> ¬({J}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent9: ({Q}{b} & {P}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{G}x v ¬{E}x) sent11: ¬{K}{c} sent12: ({Q}{b} & {P}{b}) -> ¬{O}{b} sent13: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent15: ({C}{ii} v ¬{FC}{ii}) sent16: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent17: (x): ({N}x & {M}x) -> {L}{c} sent18: (Ex): ({N}x & {M}x) sent19: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent20: (x): ({L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{H}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that either the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both does not hold.

¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the fact that the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both is true does not hold is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does drain sayeret and/or it does not drain bombardment is not correct if it is thalamocortical. sent2: the column is not diplomatic if either the natatorium does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both. sent3: if something is microeconomic then the onomancer is thalamocortical and/or it is not a bigoted. sent4: something is thalamocortical. sent5: there exists something such that it does drain sayeret. sent6: there exists something such that it drains bombardment. sent7: something dragoons toenail if that it drains harp and it is not a catfish is not right. sent8: that the column does drain harp and is not a catfish is not right if it does not dragoon surplice. sent9: the column is a kind of a Scandinavian and it is a kind of a chic. sent10: either something does not pall cliff or it is not diplomatic or both if it is not a prospector. sent11: the natatorium is not a kind of a Ichyostega. sent12: the fact that the column does not dragoon surplice is true if it is a Scandinavian and it is a chic. sent13: if something that does dragoon toenail is not diplomatic it does not burrow. sent14: the onomancer does drain sayeret or does drain bombardment or both if something is thalamocortical. sent15: either the Iowan does drain bombardment or it is not a fettle or both. sent16: the onomancer drains sayeret and/or does drain bombardment. sent17: the natatorium palls yarder if there is something such that it dragoons sternness and it detoxes. sent18: the fact that something does dragoon sternness and is a detox is not false. sent19: the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both if there exists something such that it is thalamocortical. sent20: something is not a kind of a prospector if it palls yarder and it is not a kind of a Ichyostega. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is thalamocortical.

something is thalamocortical.

the onomancer drains sayeret or it does not drain bombardment or both if there exists something such that it is thalamocortical.

there is something such that if it is not a daybook then it is a hardbacked.

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Bruchus it is a cabala. sent2: the quadruplicate is a daybook if it is not Bruneian. sent3: the Chadian is Albigensian if it is not a hardbacked. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a daybook the fact that it is a hardbacked is true. sent5: if something does not drain felt it is residential. sent6: something is a hardbacked if it is a kind of a daybook. sent7: if the liposome does creep then it is a kind of a daybook. sent8: there is something such that if it does not pall quadruplicate it is a psalterium. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a neglect it does drain oligopoly. sent10: if something is propulsive then it is an agonist. sent11: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a slenderness is true then it drains Sadat. sent12: if the liposome is not a kind of a leech then the fact that it is a kind of a hardbacked is not incorrect. sent13: if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody. sent14: if the liposome is a daybook it is a hardbacked.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬{I}x -> {N}x sent2: ¬{ES}{cs} -> {B}{cs} sent3: ¬{C}{fn} -> {P}{fn} sent4: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): ¬{CK}x -> {K}x sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent7: {IM}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬{JA}x -> {HD}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{GK}x -> {AE}x sent10: (x): {II}x -> {BT}x sent11: (Ex): {IL}x -> {FL}x sent12: ¬{CG}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent13: ¬{C}{aa} -> {ED}{aa} sent14: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a daybook then it is a hardbacked. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a Bruchus it is a cabala. sent2: the quadruplicate is a daybook if it is not Bruneian. sent3: the Chadian is Albigensian if it is not a hardbacked. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a daybook the fact that it is a hardbacked is true. sent5: if something does not drain felt it is residential. sent6: something is a hardbacked if it is a kind of a daybook. sent7: if the liposome does creep then it is a kind of a daybook. sent8: there is something such that if it does not pall quadruplicate it is a psalterium. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a neglect it does drain oligopoly. sent10: if something is propulsive then it is an agonist. sent11: there is something such that if that it is a kind of a slenderness is true then it drains Sadat. sent12: if the liposome is not a kind of a leech then the fact that it is a kind of a hardbacked is not incorrect. sent13: if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody. sent14: if the liposome is a daybook it is a hardbacked. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody.

if the liposome is not a kind of a hardbacked it is a custody.

if the liposome does creep then it is a kind of a daybook.

the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong.

sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic.

¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the saltine is not monotonic.

¬{B}{eo}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness does not hold is not false.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the adder is monotonic.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic.

If the deer is not peptic, the fact that it is not a endospore is incorrect.

the deer is not peptic.

the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong.

sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic.

¬({B}{b} v {C}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the saltine is not monotonic.

¬{B}{eo}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the adder is monotonic or it palls valentine or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic. sent2: the deer is not peptic. sent3: something is peptic if it is autacoidal. sent4: if something is peptic that it does not pall valentine and is monotonic is not true. sent5: the fact that the deer is not a endospore but it is a quarrelsomeness does not hold. sent6: the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect. sent7: that the deer is both a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is wrong if it is not peptic. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness does not hold is not false.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the adder is monotonic.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the deer is both not a endospore and not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect if it is not peptic.

If the deer is not peptic, then the fact that it is not a endospore is incorrect.

the adder is monotonic if the fact that the deer is not a kind of a endospore and it is not a quarrelsomeness is incorrect.

the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and it is not croupy.

sent1: the havelock is not croupy and it is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not croupy. sent2: something that slaps is a keypad. sent3: the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific. sent4: the havelock does not hoe. sent5: something is a kind of a material that is not conspecific if it is a kind of a keypad. sent6: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and is not croupy if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. sent7: if the invagination is material but it is not a kind of a conspecific then the peepshow is conspecific. sent8: the fact that the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae hold. sent9: if the nymphet is not a Alsatian the invagination slaps and it is an oldie. sent10: something is not conspecific. sent11: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae.

(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct.

¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and it is not croupy. ; $context$ = sent1: the havelock is not croupy and it is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not croupy. sent2: something that slaps is a keypad. sent3: the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific. sent4: the havelock does not hoe. sent5: something is a kind of a material that is not conspecific if it is a kind of a keypad. sent6: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae and is not croupy if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. sent7: if the invagination is material but it is not a kind of a conspecific then the peepshow is conspecific. sent8: the fact that the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae hold. sent9: if the nymphet is not a Alsatian the invagination slaps and it is an oldie. sent10: something is not conspecific. sent11: the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific.

the fact that the havelock is not a Cercopidae and it is not croupy is not correct if the peepshow is conspecific.

the havelock is not a kind of a Cercopidae if the peepshow is not a Cercopidae.

the tenor is not unequivocal.

sent1: the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar. sent2: the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not Zionist if there is something such that it is brahminic. sent3: if the fact that something is unequivocal and it is a kind of a ferricyanide does not hold then it is not unequivocal. sent4: the anchorage is a pallidum if the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not a Zionist. sent5: that if something does not pall giver then it palls chad and it palls headstock is not incorrect. sent6: the tenor is unequivocal if something that does not pall constituency drains cheddar. sent7: the secretin does not pall giver if the anchorage either is not a draba or is a kind of a pallidum or both. sent8: there are brahminic things.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the tenor is not unequivocal is not wrong.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tenor is not unequivocal. ; $context$ = sent1: the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar. sent2: the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not Zionist if there is something such that it is brahminic. sent3: if the fact that something is unequivocal and it is a kind of a ferricyanide does not hold then it is not unequivocal. sent4: the anchorage is a pallidum if the ketoprofen does not crump and it is not a Zionist. sent5: that if something does not pall giver then it palls chad and it palls headstock is not incorrect. sent6: the tenor is unequivocal if something that does not pall constituency drains cheddar. sent7: the secretin does not pall giver if the anchorage either is not a draba or is a kind of a pallidum or both. sent8: there are brahminic things. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: something does not pall constituency and does drain cheddar.; int1 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar.

the awlwort does not pall constituency and drains cheddar.

the tenor is unequivocal if something that does not pall constituency drains cheddar.

the epic does not occur.

sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness.

¬{C}

sent1: {CG} sent2: {B} sent3: ({FR} & {AE}) -> ¬{IM} sent4: {BA} sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {JA}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{FU} sent9: (¬{B} v {C}) -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

the viziership happens and the semifinal happens.

({JA} & {IN})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the epic does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the examining revolver and the intermission happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the examining revolver occurs.

The revolver is being examined.

the intermission happens.

the epic does not occur.

sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness.

¬{C}

sent1: {CG} sent2: {B} sent3: ({FR} & {AE}) -> ¬{IM} sent4: {BA} sent5: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {JA}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{FU} sent9: (¬{B} v {C}) -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

the viziership happens and the semifinal happens.

({JA} & {IN})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the epic does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hugging happens. sent2: the intermission happens. sent3: if the naiveness happens and the exchange occurs then the rockiness does not occur. sent4: the display occurs. sent5: if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur. sent6: that the examining revolver occurs and the viziership occurs is triggered by that the intermission does not occur. sent7: the examining revolver occurs. sent8: the muscling does not occur. sent9: that the epicness happens is triggered by that the intermission does not occur and/or the epicness. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the examining revolver and the intermission happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the examining revolver occurs.

A revolver is being examined.

if the examining revolver occurs and the intermission occurs the epicness does not occur.

the malacologist is not random.

sent1: the malacologist is not obedient. sent2: the malacologist is not ateleiotic if there is something such that it is not an experienced or it is not a Hampshire or both. sent3: the malacologist does not dragoon variolation if there is something such that it is not alkylic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold. sent5: the fact that the malacologist is not ascensional is not wrong. sent6: if there is something such that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository the malacologist does not dragoon variolation. sent7: if something is not an operative then it does not drain sliced and it is not a saprophyte. sent8: something that is ascensional does dragoon variolation. sent9: there exists something such that it either does not dragoon geography or is a halloo or both. sent10: if there is something such that it does not drain pinkie or it is not random or both the pinkie is not a kind of a saprophyte. sent11: that something is not a kind of an experienced hold if that it does not dragoon variolation is true. sent12: something is not nonrandom if it does dragoon variolation.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: ¬{CK}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{C}x v ¬{FM}x) -> ¬{BR}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{D}{a} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{GT}x -> (¬{BT}x & ¬{IH}x) sent8: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{DQ}x v {GR}x) sent10: (x): (¬{CE}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{IH}{fi} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the malacologist is random.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the malacologist is not random. ; $context$ = sent1: the malacologist is not obedient. sent2: the malacologist is not ateleiotic if there is something such that it is not an experienced or it is not a Hampshire or both. sent3: the malacologist does not dragoon variolation if there is something such that it is not alkylic. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold. sent5: the fact that the malacologist is not ascensional is not wrong. sent6: if there is something such that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository the malacologist does not dragoon variolation. sent7: if something is not an operative then it does not drain sliced and it is not a saprophyte. sent8: something that is ascensional does dragoon variolation. sent9: there exists something such that it either does not dragoon geography or is a halloo or both. sent10: if there is something such that it does not drain pinkie or it is not random or both the pinkie is not a kind of a saprophyte. sent11: that something is not a kind of an experienced hold if that it does not dragoon variolation is true. sent12: something is not nonrandom if it does dragoon variolation. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold.

there exists something such that the fact that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository hold.

if there is something such that it is not alkylic and/or it is not a suppository the malacologist does not dragoon variolation.

there is something such that if it is a bicentennial it does not modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy.

sent1: something modifies but it does not examine hemoglobinopathy if it is bicentennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is bicentennial then it does modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. sent3: if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial. sent4: there exists something such that if it depopulates it does not steepen and it is not acetic.

(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {L}{aa} -> ({CP}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {GG}x -> (¬{AU}x & ¬{IA}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a bicentennial it does not modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. ; $context$ = sent1: something modifies but it does not examine hemoglobinopathy if it is bicentennial. sent2: there exists something such that if it is bicentennial then it does modify and it does not examine hemoglobinopathy. sent3: if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial. sent4: there exists something such that if it depopulates it does not steepen and it is not acetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial.

if that the natatorium is a faithful hold it is a comestible and is not a kind of a bicentennial.

something modifies but it does not examine hemoglobinopathy if it is bicentennial.

the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur.

sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the millennialness happens and the Omaniness does not occur.

({HP} & ¬{BA})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fiduciariness happens and the draining osier does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the gin occurs.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the ginning does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs.

The draining osier doesn't occur if the fiduciary happens.

either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur.

the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur.

sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the millennialness happens and the Omaniness does not occur.

({HP} & ¬{BA})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fiduciary occurs and the draining osier does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Scandinavianness occurs then the millennialness and the non-Omaniness occurs. sent2: if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs. sent3: the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur. sent4: either that the gin does not occur or that the Scandinavian does not occur or both results in that the gin does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fiduciariness happens and the draining osier does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the gin occurs.; sent4 & sent3 -> int2: the ginning does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fiduciary happens but the draining osier does not occur the gin occurs.

The draining osier does not occur if the fiduciary happens.

the ginning does not occur and/or the Scandinavianness does not occur.

the biscuit is a kind of a Germanic.

sent1: if the fact that the pediment is not a foreshore and it is not a wood is incorrect then the succession is not Germanic. sent2: the biscuit is a kind of a foreshore. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ensemble is correct. sent4: the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession. sent5: the biscuit is a Germanic if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore. sent6: that the pediment is not a kind of a foreshore and is not a wood does not hold if something is a wood. sent7: if that something is both not a dinginess and Germanic is not right it is not a Germanic. sent8: that the Mylar is a foreshore is right. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a startle but not a Falconidae is wrong the matte is a Falconidae. sent10: if something is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability it does not drain succession. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a dinginess then the biscuit is Germanic thing that is a foreshore. sent12: the fact that the Wright does startle but it is not a Falconidae is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a dinginess that the biscuit is a foreshore is right. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a Germanic then the biscuit is a foreshore. sent15: that the matte is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability is not wrong if it is a Falconidae.

{B}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the biscuit is not Germanic.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the biscuit is a kind of a Germanic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the pediment is not a foreshore and it is not a wood is incorrect then the succession is not Germanic. sent2: the biscuit is a kind of a foreshore. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ensemble is correct. sent4: the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession. sent5: the biscuit is a Germanic if there exists something such that it is not a foreshore. sent6: that the pediment is not a kind of a foreshore and is not a wood does not hold if something is a wood. sent7: if that something is both not a dinginess and Germanic is not right it is not a Germanic. sent8: that the Mylar is a foreshore is right. sent9: if there is something such that that it is a startle but not a Falconidae is wrong the matte is a Falconidae. sent10: if something is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability it does not drain succession. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a dinginess then the biscuit is Germanic thing that is a foreshore. sent12: the fact that the Wright does startle but it is not a Falconidae is not correct. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a dinginess that the biscuit is a foreshore is right. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not a Germanic then the biscuit is a foreshore. sent15: that the matte is a kind of non-Hemingwayesque thing that is not a perishability is not wrong if it is a Falconidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession.

the ruthenium is a wood if something does not drain succession.

if that something is both not a dinginess and Germanic is not right it is not a Germanic.

the gofer does pall wiriness.

sent1: if the fact that the gofer drains agony is not false then the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent2: the parka does dragoon column and does code. sent3: the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent4: if the fact that the trooper does not dragoon column but it is a kind of a unpalatability is wrong then the column is not a unpalatability. sent5: if something is not effortless then the fact that it does not dragoon column and it is a unpalatability is false. sent6: if something is a kind of a unpalatability it is not integumentary and/or palls lashing. sent7: the gofer drains agony. sent8: something is not depressant. sent9: if there are non-depressant things then the wrapping drains agony. sent10: the exon palls wiriness if the gofer is integumentary. sent11: if the trooper is effortless the column is a kind of a unpalatability. sent12: the column does pall lashing if the exon is integumentary. sent13: the trooper is not effortless if the parka does code. sent14: the gofer does not pall wiriness if the fact that the wrapping is not depressant but it does drain agony is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it does dragoon column hold the trooper is effortless or dragoon column or both. sent16: the fact that the column is integumentary is true if something does not pall lashing. sent17: if the fact that something palls lashing and it is integumentary does not hold then that it does not drain agony is correct. sent18: if the exon is depressant then that the wrapping does not pall wiriness and does not drain agony is wrong. sent19: that the column is integumentary is not incorrect if the exon does pall lashing. sent20: something is depressant. sent21: if the column palls lashing the gofer palls wiriness. sent22: either the matchlock is not unintelligent or it is a code or both. sent23: if the column is not a unpalatability then the fact that the exon palls lashing and it is integumentary is wrong.

{E}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the gofer does not pall wiriness.

¬{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gofer does pall wiriness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the gofer drains agony is not false then the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent2: the parka does dragoon column and does code. sent3: the wrapping does pall wiriness. sent4: if the fact that the trooper does not dragoon column but it is a kind of a unpalatability is wrong then the column is not a unpalatability. sent5: if something is not effortless then the fact that it does not dragoon column and it is a unpalatability is false. sent6: if something is a kind of a unpalatability it is not integumentary and/or palls lashing. sent7: the gofer drains agony. sent8: something is not depressant. sent9: if there are non-depressant things then the wrapping drains agony. sent10: the exon palls wiriness if the gofer is integumentary. sent11: if the trooper is effortless the column is a kind of a unpalatability. sent12: the column does pall lashing if the exon is integumentary. sent13: the trooper is not effortless if the parka does code. sent14: the gofer does not pall wiriness if the fact that the wrapping is not depressant but it does drain agony is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that the fact that it does dragoon column hold the trooper is effortless or dragoon column or both. sent16: the fact that the column is integumentary is true if something does not pall lashing. sent17: if the fact that something palls lashing and it is integumentary does not hold then that it does not drain agony is correct. sent18: if the exon is depressant then that the wrapping does not pall wiriness and does not drain agony is wrong. sent19: that the column is integumentary is not incorrect if the exon does pall lashing. sent20: something is depressant. sent21: if the column palls lashing the gofer palls wiriness. sent22: either the matchlock is not unintelligent or it is a code or both. sent23: if the column is not a unpalatability then the fact that the exon palls lashing and it is integumentary is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not depressant.

something is not depressant.

if there are non-depressant things then the wrapping drains agony.

the rhinovirus is an urge.

sent1: if something is rimless that it is not an afghani and is acneiform is incorrect. sent2: the rhinovirus is not an afghani if the fact that the fact that the seaquake is not a kind of an afghani and is acneiform is not wrong does not hold. sent3: everything is not acneiform. sent4: something is a provider. sent5: the cog is a provider and does not command. sent6: there is something such that it is both a provider and a command. sent7: the fact that the seaquake is not an afghani is not false if there is something such that it is a provider and it does not command.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the antimycin is not an urge.

¬{B}{dh}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rhinovirus is an urge. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is rimless that it is not an afghani and is acneiform is incorrect. sent2: the rhinovirus is not an afghani if the fact that the fact that the seaquake is not a kind of an afghani and is acneiform is not wrong does not hold. sent3: everything is not acneiform. sent4: something is a provider. sent5: the cog is a provider and does not command. sent6: there is something such that it is both a provider and a command. sent7: the fact that the seaquake is not an afghani is not false if there is something such that it is a provider and it does not command. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the cog is a provider and does not command.

the cog is a provider and does not command.

the fact that the seaquake is not an afghani is not false if there is something such that it is a provider and it does not command.

the Circe is a kind of a booboisie.

sent1: that that the dallier is both not a contingency and a Samoyedic is not wrong is not right if it is a Sennacherib. sent2: the fact that the dallier is not the Samoyedic if the fact that the dallier is not a kind of a contingency and is a Samoyedic is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: either the stud is nonfictional or it is a Samoyedic or both if there is something such that it is a Samoyedic. sent4: the Circe is not a contingency if the dallier is not a kind of a contingency. sent5: if something is not a contingency the fact that it is not nonfictional and is not a kind of a Samoyedic is not right. sent6: if the fact that the haulm is not a kind of a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot is not right it is a Karelian. sent7: the dallier is a booboisie. sent8: if the haulm is not a contingency the Circe is a booboisie. sent9: the fact that something is a booboisie is not false if it is nonfictional. sent10: the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional. sent11: the dallier is not a Sennacherib. sent12: the Circe is a booboisie if the haulm is not a Sennacherib. sent13: that something is not non-meteoric but it is not a kind of a Kendall is not right if it does diverge stud. sent14: the dallier is nonfictional. sent15: the haulm does diverge stud if it does diverge rutabaga. sent16: if something is a Trapa it is both not a contingency and not a Sennacherib. sent17: that the haulm is not a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot does not hold. sent18: if the Circe is not a Samoyedic then the haulm is a booboisie. sent19: the haulm diverges rutabaga if it is a Karelian.

{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Circe is not a booboisie is true.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Circe is a kind of a booboisie. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the dallier is both not a contingency and a Samoyedic is not wrong is not right if it is a Sennacherib. sent2: the fact that the dallier is not the Samoyedic if the fact that the dallier is not a kind of a contingency and is a Samoyedic is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: either the stud is nonfictional or it is a Samoyedic or both if there is something such that it is a Samoyedic. sent4: the Circe is not a contingency if the dallier is not a kind of a contingency. sent5: if something is not a contingency the fact that it is not nonfictional and is not a kind of a Samoyedic is not right. sent6: if the fact that the haulm is not a kind of a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot is not right it is a Karelian. sent7: the dallier is a booboisie. sent8: if the haulm is not a contingency the Circe is a booboisie. sent9: the fact that something is a booboisie is not false if it is nonfictional. sent10: the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional. sent11: the dallier is not a Sennacherib. sent12: the Circe is a booboisie if the haulm is not a Sennacherib. sent13: that something is not non-meteoric but it is not a kind of a Kendall is not right if it does diverge stud. sent14: the dallier is nonfictional. sent15: the haulm does diverge stud if it does diverge rutabaga. sent16: if something is a Trapa it is both not a contingency and not a Sennacherib. sent17: that the haulm is not a Karelian and it does not dodge marmot does not hold. sent18: if the Circe is not a Samoyedic then the haulm is a booboisie. sent19: the haulm diverges rutabaga if it is a Karelian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional.

the haulm is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the dallier is nonfictional.

the dallier is nonfictional.

the glazing gilt occurs.

sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

{E}

sent1: {CD} sent2: {F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{DE} sent5: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

the glazing gilt does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glazing gilt occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the hopper occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the hopper but not the loss happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

Either the instillation happens or the Prussianness happens.

if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens.

the glazing gilt occurs.

sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

{E}

sent1: {CD} sent2: {F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{DE} sent5: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

the glazing gilt does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glazing gilt occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the hopper occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the hopper but not the loss happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

Either the instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs.

the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs.

the glazing gilt occurs.

sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

{E}

sent1: {CD} sent2: {F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{DE} sent5: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

the glazing gilt does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glazing gilt occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the hopper occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the hopper but not the loss happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

Either the instillation occurs or the Prussianness occurs.

the loss does not occur.

the glazing gilt occurs.

sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

{E}

sent1: {CD} sent2: {F} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent3: {A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{DE} sent5: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> {E} sent6: ¬{D} sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

the glazing gilt does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glazing gilt occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the psycholinguisticness occurs is right. sent2: if the renting happens the hopper does not occur and the loss does not occur. sent3: if the dodging instillation occurs the hopper happens. sent4: the diverging Orpheus does not occur. sent5: that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur. sent6: the loss does not occur. sent7: the Prussian brings about that the hopper occurs. sent8: if the Prussianness does not occur but the dodging instillation occurs then the fact that the cometariness does not occur is correct. sent9: either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the hopper occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the hopper but not the loss happens.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the dodging instillation happens or the Prussianness occurs or both.

Either the instillation happens or it does.

that the hopper but not the loss occurs prevents that the glazing gilt does not occur.

the hartebeest either is a brew or is trivalent or both.

sent1: the cyclopropane is a phenol if it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent2: the cyclopropane is a kind of a frontbencher. sent3: something that does not glaze OSHA does hew miconazole and is not non-medullary. sent4: if the grazier is not non-second the hartebeest is not a culture and is not trivalent. sent5: the reticulum is a culture if the drink is a kind of trivalent thing that does not culture. sent6: the fact that something is a Haplopappus and/or is not a brew is not right if it does not aspire. sent7: the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus. sent8: if something that does not second does not culture it is not a kind of a Haplopappus. sent9: if that the cyclopropane does not vow or does glaze OSHA or both is not true the grazier does not glaze OSHA. sent10: if something is a kind of a phenol that either it is not a kind of a vow or it glazes OSHA or both is not correct. sent11: the patch does brew. sent12: if the fact that the grazier hews miconazole is not incorrect that the drink does aspire is correct. sent13: the drink is a brew if the hartebeest does brew. sent14: the fact that the drink is a Haplopappus is not false. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a Haplopappus and/or it does not brew does not hold the drink is not a kind of a culture.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the reticulum is a culture.

{B}{hn}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hartebeest either is a brew or is trivalent or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the cyclopropane is a phenol if it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent2: the cyclopropane is a kind of a frontbencher. sent3: something that does not glaze OSHA does hew miconazole and is not non-medullary. sent4: if the grazier is not non-second the hartebeest is not a culture and is not trivalent. sent5: the reticulum is a culture if the drink is a kind of trivalent thing that does not culture. sent6: the fact that something is a Haplopappus and/or is not a brew is not right if it does not aspire. sent7: the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus. sent8: if something that does not second does not culture it is not a kind of a Haplopappus. sent9: if that the cyclopropane does not vow or does glaze OSHA or both is not true the grazier does not glaze OSHA. sent10: if something is a kind of a phenol that either it is not a kind of a vow or it glazes OSHA or both is not correct. sent11: the patch does brew. sent12: if the fact that the grazier hews miconazole is not incorrect that the drink does aspire is correct. sent13: the drink is a brew if the hartebeest does brew. sent14: the fact that the drink is a Haplopappus is not false. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a Haplopappus and/or it does not brew does not hold the drink is not a kind of a culture. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus.

the drink is a culture if it is a Haplopappus.

the fact that the drink is a Haplopappus is not false.

the opossum is a anxiolytic.

sent1: the Rosicrucian does not diverge Io if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a minimalist and not a anxiolytic does not hold. sent2: something is not frivolous and it is not a charioteer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not frivolous and it is a kind of a charioteer is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it does not hew methotrexate and is not frivolous is incorrect then the opossum does not decorate. sent5: the contaminant is not frivolous if the opossum either is not a charter or is not anxiolytic or both. sent6: if the fact that something does not charter and it is not a kind of a consort is incorrect it is a anxiolytic. sent7: the shot is not a kind of a anxiolytic. sent8: there exists something such that that it is both frivolous and not a charioteer is not true. sent9: the opossum is not a anxiolytic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-frivolous thing that is not a charioteer is false. sent10: the opossum is not a charioteer. sent11: the hydrosphere is not a Bosch and it does not dodge cruse. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that that the nub is obedient and is not a Girard is not incorrect is false the manifold is not obedient. sent14: if there is something such that it is frivolous then the opossum is not a anxiolytic. sent15: if something does not glaze speakeasy then that it is a kind of obedient thing that is not a Girard does not hold. sent16: the opossum does not matriculate. sent17: the President is not a quiff if there exists something such that that that it does not glaze handled and is not puerile is not false is wrong.

{A}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{BA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{BI}{aj} sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{BQ}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{FH}{a} sent5: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{bb} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent7: ¬{A}{bd} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: ¬{AB}{a} sent11: (¬{G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent16: ¬{FI}{a} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{CF}x & ¬{CS}x) -> ¬{S}{r}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the contaminant is not frivolous.

¬{AA}{bb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the opossum is a anxiolytic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Rosicrucian does not diverge Io if there is something such that the fact that it is both not a minimalist and not a anxiolytic does not hold. sent2: something is not frivolous and it is not a charioteer. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is not frivolous and it is a kind of a charioteer is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it does not hew methotrexate and is not frivolous is incorrect then the opossum does not decorate. sent5: the contaminant is not frivolous if the opossum either is not a charter or is not anxiolytic or both. sent6: if the fact that something does not charter and it is not a kind of a consort is incorrect it is a anxiolytic. sent7: the shot is not a kind of a anxiolytic. sent8: there exists something such that that it is both frivolous and not a charioteer is not true. sent9: the opossum is not a anxiolytic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-frivolous thing that is not a charioteer is false. sent10: the opossum is not a charioteer. sent11: the hydrosphere is not a Bosch and it does not dodge cruse. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold. sent13: if the fact that that the nub is obedient and is not a Girard is not incorrect is false the manifold is not obedient. sent14: if there is something such that it is frivolous then the opossum is not a anxiolytic. sent15: if something does not glaze speakeasy then that it is a kind of obedient thing that is not a Girard does not hold. sent16: the opossum does not matriculate. sent17: the President is not a quiff if there exists something such that that that it does not glaze handled and is not puerile is not false is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold.

there exists something such that that it is not frivolous and not a charioteer does not hold.

the opossum is not a anxiolytic if there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-frivolous thing that is not a charioteer is false.

the tooth happens.

sent1: the dodging rail-splitter does not occur and the hewing tragedian does not occur if the administering does not occur. sent2: if the glazing prairie happens that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is incorrect then the hemodynamicsness does not occur. sent4: the repayment does not occur. sent5: that the non-holozoicness and the non-actableness occurs prevents that the administering happens. sent6: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent7: that the glazing prairie and the perceptiveness occurs is caused by that the dodging rail-splitter does not occur. sent8: if the glazing Eschscholtzia occurs the bibliographicness occurs. sent9: the invertebrate occurs. sent10: if the hemodynamicsness does not occur both the tooth and the repayment happens. sent11: that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens.

{A}

sent1: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent2: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent3: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{B} sent5: (¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent6: ¬{GM} sent7: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent8: {CN} -> {JA} sent9: {HN} sent10: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent11: {A} -> {B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the tooth occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tooth happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the dodging rail-splitter does not occur and the hewing tragedian does not occur if the administering does not occur. sent2: if the glazing prairie happens that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the diverging MBA does not occur and the glazing chevre does not occur is incorrect then the hemodynamicsness does not occur. sent4: the repayment does not occur. sent5: that the non-holozoicness and the non-actableness occurs prevents that the administering happens. sent6: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent7: that the glazing prairie and the perceptiveness occurs is caused by that the dodging rail-splitter does not occur. sent8: if the glazing Eschscholtzia occurs the bibliographicness occurs. sent9: the invertebrate occurs. sent10: if the hemodynamicsness does not occur both the tooth and the repayment happens. sent11: that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tooth happens.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the repayment occurs.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens.

that the repayment occurs is not incorrect if the tooth happens.

the repayment does not occur.

the shillelagh is a kind of a croak.

sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the shillelagh does not croak.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shillelagh is a kind of a croak. ; $context$ = sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular.

There is a kind of Afghan that is not tegular.

if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama.

the shillelagh is a kind of a croak.

sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the shillelagh does not croak.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shillelagh is a kind of a croak. ; $context$ = sent1: the shillelagh does unbosom if there exists something such that that it is a Kama or it does croak or both is wrong. sent2: something is a Afghan. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a footballer and it is servile is incorrect. sent4: if something does unbosom and/or it does not hew IPO then it does unbosom. sent5: the tovarich is not a mid-water if it is not top-down and does diverge alprazolam. sent6: that the semen does not unbosom is not incorrect if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent7: something does unbosom or it is a Kama or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a Kama. sent9: something is not tegular. sent10: the semen is a croak if there is something such that the fact that it does unbosom or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent11: that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama. sent12: there is something such that it does not unbosom. sent13: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a Afghan that is not tegular then the tovarich is not a Kama. sent15: the semen does not unbosom or it is a kind of a mid-water or both. sent16: either something unbosoms or it does not hew IPO or both if it is not a mid-water. sent17: the tovarich is a Kama if there exists something such that the fact that it croaks or does unbosom or both is not correct. sent18: the tovarich is not a footballer if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a footballer and it is servile does not hold. sent19: that the semen does not unbosom is right. sent20: the shillelagh is not a Kama. sent21: if something is not a kind of a footballer then it is a kind of non-top-down thing that diverges alprazolam. sent22: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a croak or it is a Kama or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a Afghan and is tegular. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a kind of a Afghan and it is not tegular.

It is a kind of Afghan that is not tegular.

that the semen does unbosom or it is a Kama or both is wrong if the tovarich is not a Kama.

the hewing parasailing occurs.

sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur.

{A}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ({BA} v ¬{AP}) sent3: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) sent4: {GF} sent5: {EI} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent7: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent9: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BG} sent10: ¬{EH} sent11: {D} -> ¬{C} sent12: (¬{K} & {J}) sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent14: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent15: {HT} sent16: ¬{IF}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the doctrinalness does not occur.

¬{BG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewing parasailing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hewing parasailing occurs.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the flash happens.; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: the flashing does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hewing parasailing results in the flashing.

The hewing parasailing causes the flashing.

if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur.

the hewing parasailing occurs.

sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur.

{A}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: ({BA} v ¬{AP}) sent3: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) sent4: {GF} sent5: {EI} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent7: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent9: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{BG} sent10: ¬{EH} sent11: {D} -> ¬{C} sent12: (¬{K} & {J}) sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) sent14: (¬{B} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent15: {HT} sent16: ¬{IF}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the doctrinalness does not occur.

¬{BG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hewing parasailing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hewing parasailing results in the flashing. sent2: the diverging dyewood occurs and/or the experientialness does not occur. sent3: the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both. sent4: the glazing strongman occurs. sent5: the coursing happens. sent6: that the glazing handled does not occur is brought about by that not the dodging clouded but the wettingness occurs. sent7: the alkalimetry does not occur if not the glazing handled but the precession happens. sent8: if that the alkalimetry does not occur is correct then both the backflow and the vibrato occurs. sent9: the doctrinalness does not occur if that the hewing parasailing happens but the flash does not occur is not right. sent10: the aldehydicness does not occur. sent11: the decimalization does not occur if the backflow occurs. sent12: not the dodging clouded but the wettingness happens. sent13: if the decimalization does not occur then the fact that the hewing parasailing but not the flashing happens does not hold. sent14: if the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both the flashing does not occur. sent15: the dodging bellwort occurs. sent16: the harmony does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hewing parasailing occurs.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the flash happens.; sent14 & sent3 -> int2: the flashing does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hewing parasailing results in the flashing.

The hewing parasailing results in a flash.

the flashing does not occur or the decimalization does not occur or both.

that the lory is a kind of unhelpful thing that does not glaze metrification does not hold.

sent1: the educationist constipates. sent2: something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates. sent3: the lory is thermohydrometric but it does not diverge panchayat. sent4: that the cesium constipates hold. sent5: the lory does constipate. sent6: if the fact that the lory constipates is right then it is unhelpful.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

sent1: {A}{fp} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ({EA}{aa} & ¬{DS}{aa}) sent4: {A}{bf} sent5: {A}{aa} sent6: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the lory is a kind of unhelpful thing that does not glaze metrification does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the educationist constipates. sent2: something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates. sent3: the lory is thermohydrometric but it does not diverge panchayat. sent4: that the cesium constipates hold. sent5: the lory does constipate. sent6: if the fact that the lory constipates is right then it is unhelpful. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the lory is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if that it constipates is right.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates.

something is unhelpful but it does not glaze metrification if it constipates.

the lory does constipate.

the exception does not occur.

sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exception does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the diverging mulligan happens.; sent6 -> int2: the electrocautery happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan happens.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens.

The diverging mulligan happens if the carvel-builtness happens.

the carvel-builtness happens.

the exception does not occur.

sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exception does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the diverging mulligan happens.; sent6 -> int2: the electrocautery happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan happens.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens.

The divergingMulligan happens if the carvel-builtness happens.

the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs.

the exception does not occur.

sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs.

¬{D}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the exception does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the chinking happens. sent2: if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens. sent3: the commission occurs. sent4: the carvel-builtness happens. sent5: that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur. sent6: the electrocautery and the diverging chime occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the diverging mulligan happens.; sent6 -> int2: the electrocautery happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan happens.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the carvel-builtness happens then the diverging mulligan happens.

The diverging mulligan will happen if the carvel-builtness happens.

that the electrocautery occurs and the diverging mulligan occurs causes that the exception does not occur.

the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares.

sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct.

({A}{a} & {B}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the rampart diverges deactivation and glares does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares. ; $context$ = sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss.

The potassium isn't a brim and isn't a koumiss.

there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold.

the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares.

sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct.

({A}{a} & {B}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the rampart diverges deactivation and glares does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rampart does diverge deactivation and glares. ; $context$ = sent1: that the brocket is a contact and gallivants does not hold if the ceriman is not a farmstead. sent2: if the infiltration does not gallivant the rampart is both not a glare and not wearable. sent3: the infiltration does not gallivant if the fact that the brocket is a contact and does gallivant is not true. sent4: something is a contact and/or does not gallivant if it is not a farmstead. sent5: there is something such that that it is not wearable and gallivants is wrong. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is not wearable and does not gallivant does not hold. sent7: the groundsel is technological. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not glaze Eck and is not a kind of a fellow does not hold. sent9: the groundsel does glaze Eck. sent10: there exists something such that it is a koumiss. sent11: something that is not a glare is a kind of a koumiss and does diverge deactivation. sent12: if there exists something such that that it does not glaze Eck and it is not a fellow does not hold then the brocket is not a kind of a farmstead. sent13: there is something such that that it is non-categorematic a barter does not hold. sent14: the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss. sent15: something is not wearable if that it is both wearable and not a fellow is not correct. sent16: if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare. sent17: that the infiltration is wearable but it is not a kind of a fellow does not hold if the type does flag. sent18: the type does flag if there exists something such that that the fact that it is non-categorematic and it does barter is not false is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the potassium is not a brim and is a koumiss.

The potassium is a koumiss.

if there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is not wearable and it does not gallivant is right is not true then the rampart is a glare.

the sibyl is not a snowmobile.

sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sibyl does not snowmobile.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sibyl is not a snowmobile. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sibyl is seedy.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right.

The hornpout quarters are not a kind of rockabilly.

if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy.

the sibyl is not a snowmobile.

sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sibyl does not snowmobile.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sibyl is not a snowmobile. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right. sent2: if the nacelle does snowmobile then the sibyl is not a kind of a snowmobile. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly is not correct then the sibyl is seedy. sent4: if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile. sent5: the pulsation is seedy. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a quarter that is not a kind of a rockabilly does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sibyl is seedy.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the hornpout quarters but it is not a kind of a rockabilly is not right.

It is not right that the hornpout quarters are not a kind of rockabilly.

if the sibyl is seedy it does snowmobile.

the spellbinder is non-suburban.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a proturan that it glazes viscountcy and does glaze dreamer is false. sent2: if something is not an embolism it is suburban and it is not starry. sent3: something is morphophonemics and is a kind of a Libreville if it is not a colleen. sent4: everything is not a proturan. sent5: the star is not an embolism if there exists something such that the fact that it glazes viscountcy and it does glaze dreamer is incorrect. sent6: the star does not diverge cynancum. sent7: if the chimneysweeper is a kind of a colleen the tandem is a kind of a Libreville. sent8: the star is not confident. sent9: if the chimneysweeper is suburban then the spellbinder is not a colleen. sent10: the spellbinder is not suburban if the tandem is a Libreville. sent11: the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics. sent12: if the star is suburban thing that is non-starry the fact that the tiger is not a colleen is not wrong.

¬{C}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tiger is morphophonemics.

{AB}{au}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the spellbinder is non-suburban. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a proturan that it glazes viscountcy and does glaze dreamer is false. sent2: if something is not an embolism it is suburban and it is not starry. sent3: something is morphophonemics and is a kind of a Libreville if it is not a colleen. sent4: everything is not a proturan. sent5: the star is not an embolism if there exists something such that the fact that it glazes viscountcy and it does glaze dreamer is incorrect. sent6: the star does not diverge cynancum. sent7: if the chimneysweeper is a kind of a colleen the tandem is a kind of a Libreville. sent8: the star is not confident. sent9: if the chimneysweeper is suburban then the spellbinder is not a colleen. sent10: the spellbinder is not suburban if the tandem is a Libreville. sent11: the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics. sent12: if the star is suburban thing that is non-starry the fact that the tiger is not a colleen is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics.

the star does not diverge cynancum and is not morphophonemics.

something is morphophonemics and is a kind of a Libreville if it is not a colleen.

the quadrant is multiform.

sent1: if the fact that the grazier is amethystine but not a peso does not hold the calcium is not textual. sent2: if the Washingtonian is not a kind of a ruminant but it is a Phanerozoic then the grazier is not a blitz. sent3: something that is not a Lysimachus is both not ruminant and a Phanerozoic. sent4: the calcium is a wanderer. sent5: something is amethystine if it is a peso. sent6: that the quadrant is multiform is not incorrect if the calcium is amethystine. sent7: either something is not multiform or it is not a wanderer or both if it is not textual. sent8: the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer.

{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the quadrant is not multiform.

¬{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the quadrant is multiform. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the grazier is amethystine but not a peso does not hold the calcium is not textual. sent2: if the Washingtonian is not a kind of a ruminant but it is a Phanerozoic then the grazier is not a blitz. sent3: something that is not a Lysimachus is both not ruminant and a Phanerozoic. sent4: the calcium is a wanderer. sent5: something is amethystine if it is a peso. sent6: that the quadrant is multiform is not incorrect if the calcium is amethystine. sent7: either something is not multiform or it is not a wanderer or both if it is not textual. sent8: the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer.

the calcium is textual thing that is a wanderer.

something is amethystine if it is a peso.

the glowworm is Hispaniolan and it diverges assassin.

sent1: the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong. sent2: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly is a gametoecium is true. sent3: the fact that something is Hispaniolan and it does diverge assassin is not right if it does not beg. sent4: the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U and is a gametoecium does not hold. sent5: if the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge mercaptopurine it is electromechanical. sent6: the cosy is not a kind of a gametoecium if it does not beg. sent7: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U but it is not a gametoecium is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge U and is not a kind of a gametoecium is not true is not incorrect if the Spark does not beg. sent9: the glowworm does diverge assassin. sent10: The assassin does diverge glowworm.

({B}{c} & {C}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the glowworm is Hispaniolan and does diverge assassin does not hold.

¬({B}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the glowworm is Hispaniolan and it diverges assassin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong. sent2: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly is a gametoecium is true. sent3: the fact that something is Hispaniolan and it does diverge assassin is not right if it does not beg. sent4: the fact that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U and is a gametoecium does not hold. sent5: if the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge mercaptopurine it is electromechanical. sent6: the cosy is not a kind of a gametoecium if it does not beg. sent7: the glowworm is Hispaniolan if that the drunk-and-disorderly diverges U but it is not a gametoecium is wrong. sent8: the fact that that the drunk-and-disorderly does diverge U and is not a kind of a gametoecium is not true is not incorrect if the Spark does not beg. sent9: the glowworm does diverge assassin. sent10: The assassin does diverge glowworm. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong.

the fact that the Spark begs but it is not a kind of a gametoecium is wrong.

the glowworm does diverge assassin.

the soporific is a epicureanism.

sent1: the soporific is not a epicureanism if the Israeli is a nutshell and/or bodily. sent2: the soporific is a epicureanism if the Israeli is a epicureanism. sent3: if that something is not a nutshell and it is not a epicureanism does not hold it is bodily. sent4: the Israeli is bodily.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the soporific is a epicureanism.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the soporific is a epicureanism. ; $context$ = sent1: the soporific is not a epicureanism if the Israeli is a nutshell and/or bodily. sent2: the soporific is a epicureanism if the Israeli is a epicureanism. sent3: if that something is not a nutshell and it is not a epicureanism does not hold it is bodily. sent4: the Israeli is bodily. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: either the Israeli is a nutshell or it is bodily or both.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Israeli is bodily.

the Israeli is bodily.

the soporific is not a epicureanism if the Israeli is a nutshell and/or bodily.

the fact that something is not equitable is not right.

sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

sent1: ({L}{aq} & ¬{AB}{aq}) -> ¬{CR}{aq} sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ({DU}x & ¬{GC}x) -> ¬{AK}x sent4: {AC}{ab} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{bk} sent11: ¬{AA}{ej} sent12: (Ex): {I}x sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Pathan is not procedural.

¬{AB}{bk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is not equitable is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: if the berm diverges yardman but it is not procedural then it is not equitable.; sent5 & sent9 -> int2: the berm does diverge yardman and is not procedural.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the berm is not equitable hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable.

Yardman is not equitable if something is not procedural.

the berm diverges yardman.

the fact that something is not equitable is not right.

sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

sent1: ({L}{aq} & ¬{AB}{aq}) -> ¬{CR}{aq} sent2: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ({DU}x & ¬{GC}x) -> ¬{AK}x sent4: {AC}{ab} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: (Ex): {B}x sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{bk} sent11: ¬{AA}{ej} sent12: (Ex): {I}x sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Pathan is not procedural.

¬{AB}{bk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is not equitable is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the saxhorn is agrologic but it is not procedural then it is not a ampulla. sent2: a subtrahend that is not a welcher is not procedural. sent3: if something does intersect but it is not bicameral it does not glaze novelty. sent4: The yardman diverges berm. sent5: the berm diverges yardman. sent6: there exists something such that it is equitable. sent7: there is something such that it shelters. sent8: if something is a kind of a shelter then the fact that the sandbox is a kind of nontechnical a step does not hold. sent9: the berm is not procedural. sent10: the Pathan is not procedural if the Bluegrass is not equitable and it is not procedural. sent11: the novelty does not diverge yardman. sent12: there exists something such that it is unattributable. sent13: if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable. sent14: the Bluegrass is not equitable if the oboe is not responsive. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: if the berm diverges yardman but it is not procedural then it is not equitable.; sent5 & sent9 -> int2: the berm does diverge yardman and is not procedural.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the berm is not equitable hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something diverges yardman but it is not procedural it is not equitable.

Yardman is not equitable if it is not procedural.

the berm is not procedural.

the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe.

sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset.

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pupil does glaze bathyscaphe.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset.

Everything is not cross-sentential.

if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm.

the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe.

sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset.

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pupil does glaze bathyscaphe.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is non-cross-sentential. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is not instructional and it is a subcontractor is not correct. sent3: that something is both not an incubation and a alpinist is not correct if it is not a subcontractor. sent4: if the fact that something is not an incubation but it is a alpinist is false then it is not a kind of a alpinist. sent5: if something is non-mortuary and it is not agronomic it does not diverge roundhouse. sent6: something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not instructional but a subcontractor does not hold the banquette is not a subcontractor. sent8: the Saracen is not mortuary and not agronomic if the banquette is not a kind of a alpinist. sent9: if something diverges sperm that it does not glaze bathyscaphe and it is not premenopausal is not correct. sent10: if something is non-cross-sentential and diverges synset it does not diverge sperm. sent11: if the ferricyanide does not diverge sperm and is premenopausal then the pupil does not glaze bathyscaphe. sent12: if that something does not glaze bathyscaphe and is not premenopausal is not right then it glaze bathyscaphe. sent13: that the ferricyanide is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is incorrect if it is not agronomic. sent14: if the aspen is a kind of a siderite the pupil does diverge sperm. sent15: if the ferricyanide is a siderite then it is premenopausal. sent16: the fact that something is premenopausal is not false if it is a siderite. sent17: everything does not hew feeder and it does dangle. sent18: everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is not cross-sentential and it diverges synset.

Everything is different from synset.

something is premenopausal if the fact that the fact that it is not a siderite and diverges roundhouse is correct is incorrect.

the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false.

sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right.

¬{E}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the suricate is felicitous.

{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy.

If the carbide is not a transgression, the eel is distributional.

the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy.

the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false.

sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right.

¬{E}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the suricate is felicitous.

{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the suricate is not felicitous is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the suricate is not felicitous if the uncle does jell. sent2: that the carbide does not jell and it is not distributional is wrong if it is not felicitous. sent3: if the carbide is not distributional the suricate is felicitous and it does dodge Picidae. sent4: if that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae and does not jell is incorrect the suricate is not felicitous. sent5: that that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is true is not right if the fact that the eel does dodge Picidae is not wrong. sent6: something that gels is a kind of non-distributional thing that diverges Centrarchidae. sent7: the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy. sent8: the carbide is both not a transgression and uneasy. sent9: if that something does not hew Anglicization and/or it is crystalline does not hold it is not felicitous. sent10: if something dodges Picidae it does diverge Centrarchidae. sent11: the carbide is uneasy. sent12: something that is distributional does dodge Picidae. sent13: the fact that the uncle does not diverge Centrarchidae but it gels is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression but it is not easy.

The eel is distributional if the carbide is not a transgression.

something that is distributional does dodge Picidae.

that the attack is a formation and not opened is not true.

sent1: if something does not diverge clouded then it is not joyous. sent2: the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing. sent3: something does not open if that the fact that it is a muscle or it is not sternal or both is not incorrect is not right. sent4: if the workhorse is not an opened then the fact that the attack is a formation and does not opened is incorrect. sent5: something that is sternal and does not surface muscles. sent6: something that is a muscle is a formation that does not open. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a tamale and diverges clouded is not right.

¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the attack is a kind of a formation but it does not open.

({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the attack is a formation and not opened is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not diverge clouded then it is not joyous. sent2: the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing. sent3: something does not open if that the fact that it is a muscle or it is not sternal or both is not incorrect is not right. sent4: if the workhorse is not an opened then the fact that the attack is a formation and does not opened is incorrect. sent5: something that is sternal and does not surface muscles. sent6: something that is a muscle is a formation that does not open. sent7: there exists something such that that it is not a tamale and diverges clouded is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing.

the ten is a muscle and is a surfacing.

something does not open if that the fact that it is a muscle or it is not sternal or both is not incorrect is not right.

the Roman does not occur but the whipping happens.

sent1: if the fact that not the dodging like but the unchristianness happens is not correct the unchristianness does not occur. sent2: that the print does not occur brings about that the electromechanicalness and the dodging Crex occurs. sent3: if the unchristianness does not occur then the fact that the Romanness does not occur and the whipping happens does not hold. sent4: the whipping happens. sent5: that the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is not right is true if the dodging Crex occurs. sent6: the argument happens. sent7: if the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is false then the glazing exocrine does not occur. sent8: if the unchristianness does not occur then the whipping does not occur or the Roman does not occur or both. sent9: if the glazing exocrine does not occur that the dodging like does not occur but the unchristianness happens is incorrect. sent10: the Roman does not occur.

(¬{A} & {B})

sent1: ¬(¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent4: {B} sent5: {H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent6: {CR} sent7: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent10: ¬{A}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that not the Romanness but the whipping occurs is not right.

¬(¬{A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Roman does not occur but the whipping happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that not the dodging like but the unchristianness happens is not correct the unchristianness does not occur. sent2: that the print does not occur brings about that the electromechanicalness and the dodging Crex occurs. sent3: if the unchristianness does not occur then the fact that the Romanness does not occur and the whipping happens does not hold. sent4: the whipping happens. sent5: that the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is not right is true if the dodging Crex occurs. sent6: the argument happens. sent7: if the fact that both the crosstalk and the non-superficialness occurs is false then the glazing exocrine does not occur. sent8: if the unchristianness does not occur then the whipping does not occur or the Roman does not occur or both. sent9: if the glazing exocrine does not occur that the dodging like does not occur but the unchristianness happens is incorrect. sent10: the Roman does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Roman does not occur.

the Roman does not occur.

the whipping happens.

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

sent1: that the scandal occurs and the easiness does not occur is not right. sent2: the hydrographicness does not occur if the fact that the pitter-patter does not occur and the diverging Zostera does not occur is not correct. sent3: the fact that the diverging locksmith does not occur but the suffocating occurs is false. sent4: that the pitter-patter happens results in the hydrographicness.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬({EL} & ¬{HR}) sent2: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬(¬{FO} & {FB}) sent4: {A} -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the hydrographicness happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hydrographicness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the scandal occurs and the easiness does not occur is not right. sent2: the hydrographicness does not occur if the fact that the pitter-patter does not occur and the diverging Zostera does not occur is not correct. sent3: the fact that the diverging locksmith does not occur but the suffocating occurs is false. sent4: that the pitter-patter happens results in the hydrographicness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus.

sent1: the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right. sent2: if the Bantu invests the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus. ; $context$ = sent1: the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right. sent2: if the Bantu invests the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right.

the Bantu invests if there is something such that that it is not nonphotosynthetic and it is not a Kendall is not right.

if the Bantu invests the schlock is a kind of a Epictetus.

the survivor does repine.

sent1: something does repine if that it is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold. sent2: the survivor does boogie. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit. sent4: that something does dodge pilferage or is not a Madoqua or both does not hold if it is a basic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it hews chime and it is not a viper. sent6: something is a folio if the fact that it is not a osteocyte and does not diverge proclamation does not hold. sent7: if the fact that something dodges pilferage and/or it is not a Madoqua is incorrect then it does not repine. sent8: that the fact that the survivor is a folio that does not diverge wit does not hold hold. sent9: there exists nothing such that it is not low-level and it does not glaze smoulder. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is necrotic and it is not a correlation.

{A}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: {GU}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ¬({HS}x & ¬{GI}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{EH}x) -> {AA}x sent7: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{FT}x & ¬{FP}x) sent10: (x): ¬({EQ}x & ¬{FK}x)

PROVED

PROVED

that the survivor does not repine is not incorrect.

¬{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the survivor does repine. ; $context$ = sent1: something does repine if that it is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold. sent2: the survivor does boogie. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit. sent4: that something does dodge pilferage or is not a Madoqua or both does not hold if it is a basic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it hews chime and it is not a viper. sent6: something is a folio if the fact that it is not a osteocyte and does not diverge proclamation does not hold. sent7: if the fact that something dodges pilferage and/or it is not a Madoqua is incorrect then it does not repine. sent8: that the fact that the survivor is a folio that does not diverge wit does not hold hold. sent9: there exists nothing such that it is not low-level and it does not glaze smoulder. sent10: there exists nothing such that it is necrotic and it is not a correlation. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the fact that the survivor is not a folio and it does not diverge wit is not right.; sent1 -> int2: if that the survivor is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold it does repine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit.

there exists nothing such that it is not a folio and does not diverge wit.

something does repine if that it is not a folio and it does not diverge wit does not hold.

there exists something such that it does not diverge Handy.

sent1: there are unworldly things. sent2: something is not a piper and does not list if it diverges Handy. sent3: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy if there exists something such that that it is not a seafront and is not normotensive hold. sent4: the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive. sent5: there are non-normotensive things. sent6: the skull does not hew skull.

(Ex): ¬{A}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬{GB}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AG}x & ¬{AK}x) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬{EE}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it is not a kind of a piper and it does not list.

(Ex): (¬{AG}x & ¬{AK}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it does not diverge Handy. ; $context$ = sent1: there are unworldly things. sent2: something is not a piper and does not list if it diverges Handy. sent3: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy if there exists something such that that it is not a seafront and is not normotensive hold. sent4: the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive. sent5: there are non-normotensive things. sent6: the skull does not hew skull. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: something is both not a seafront and not normotensive.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive.

the skull is not a seafront and it is not normotensive.

the sentimentalist does not diverge Handy if there exists something such that that it is not a seafront and is not normotensive hold.

the yardman moors and/or is a measured.

sent1: if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman. sent2: if something does not diverge yardman that the fact that it does not glaze introduction and it does diverge Spica is correct is false. sent3: the yardman is not a Wilkinson. sent4: if something diverges Spica then it is a Carpinus. sent5: the mews does diverge Spica if the fact that the strongman does not glaze introduction but it diverge Spica is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the yardman is not a mooring but it measures is wrong if it is a Carpinus. sent7: if the mews is a kind of a Carpinus the yardman is a Carpinus. sent8: if something is not a Wilkinson and it does not diverge anticipation the yardman does measure. sent9: the almanac is rosaceous thing that diverges yardman. sent10: either the strongman does not diverge Spica or it glazes introduction or both if something diverges yardman.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that either the yardman does moor or it measures or both is not correct.

¬({B}{a} v {A}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the yardman moors and/or is a measured. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman. sent2: if something does not diverge yardman that the fact that it does not glaze introduction and it does diverge Spica is correct is false. sent3: the yardman is not a Wilkinson. sent4: if something diverges Spica then it is a Carpinus. sent5: the mews does diverge Spica if the fact that the strongman does not glaze introduction but it diverge Spica is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the yardman is not a mooring but it measures is wrong if it is a Carpinus. sent7: if the mews is a kind of a Carpinus the yardman is a Carpinus. sent8: if something is not a Wilkinson and it does not diverge anticipation the yardman does measure. sent9: the almanac is rosaceous thing that diverges yardman. sent10: either the strongman does not diverge Spica or it glazes introduction or both if something diverges yardman. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman.

if the fact that the almanac does diverge yardman but it is not rosaceous is false then the strongman does not diverge yardman.

if the mews is a kind of a Carpinus the yardman is a Carpinus.

the coax does not hew dolor.

sent1: if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan. sent2: that the raglan does not glaze exercise and does not shuck does not hold. sent3: if that the teletypewriter is a Samaritan and it is a angwantibo is incorrect the extremity is not a angwantibo. sent4: the grease-gun glazes detail. sent5: the borrower does not dodge extremity. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-abranchiate a Gyrinidae is false then the fluorine does glaze doweling. sent7: if something does not dodge clouded the fact that it is a Samaritan and is a angwantibo is false. sent8: the grease-gun does glaze courtliness but it is not an inverse if the fact that the fluorine glazes doweling is right. sent9: something is not a Samaritan if it dodges clouded. sent10: something is instructive if it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent11: the fact that the marjoram is not abranchiate but it is a Gyrinidae is incorrect if there are instructive things. sent12: something is not a Samaritan if it is a angwantibo. sent13: that the grease-gun is not catalytic and dodges clouded is not correct. sent14: the teletypewriter is a angwantibo. sent15: that the teletypewriter does not glaze courtliness and hews dolor is incorrect if the fact that the grease-gun glazes doweling is right. sent16: a pelvic thing is instructive. sent17: if there exists something such that it does not dodge extremity the zero is pelvic and/or it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent18: something does not hew dolor if that it does not dodge clouded and it is not an inverse is not true. sent19: the fact that the coax does not dodge clouded and is not an inverse is incorrect if the grease-gun is not a Samaritan. sent20: if the grease-gun glazes courtliness but it is not an inverse then the fact that the teletypewriter dodges clouded is correct.

¬{E}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the extremity is a kind of an inverse.

{D}{an}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the coax does not hew dolor. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan. sent2: that the raglan does not glaze exercise and does not shuck does not hold. sent3: if that the teletypewriter is a Samaritan and it is a angwantibo is incorrect the extremity is not a angwantibo. sent4: the grease-gun glazes detail. sent5: the borrower does not dodge extremity. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-abranchiate a Gyrinidae is false then the fluorine does glaze doweling. sent7: if something does not dodge clouded the fact that it is a Samaritan and is a angwantibo is false. sent8: the grease-gun does glaze courtliness but it is not an inverse if the fact that the fluorine glazes doweling is right. sent9: something is not a Samaritan if it dodges clouded. sent10: something is instructive if it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent11: the fact that the marjoram is not abranchiate but it is a Gyrinidae is incorrect if there are instructive things. sent12: something is not a Samaritan if it is a angwantibo. sent13: that the grease-gun is not catalytic and dodges clouded is not correct. sent14: the teletypewriter is a angwantibo. sent15: that the teletypewriter does not glaze courtliness and hews dolor is incorrect if the fact that the grease-gun glazes doweling is right. sent16: a pelvic thing is instructive. sent17: if there exists something such that it does not dodge extremity the zero is pelvic and/or it does not diverge Brobdingnag. sent18: something does not hew dolor if that it does not dodge clouded and it is not an inverse is not true. sent19: the fact that the coax does not dodge clouded and is not an inverse is incorrect if the grease-gun is not a Samaritan. sent20: if the grease-gun glazes courtliness but it is not an inverse then the fact that the teletypewriter dodges clouded is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan.

if something is not catalytic and does glaze detail then it is not a Samaritan.

something does not hew dolor if that it does not dodge clouded and it is not an inverse is not true.

the dumping does not occur.

sent1: the hewing gibibit does not occur if the fact that both the hewing gibibit and the disproportionateness occurs is not right. sent2: the hewing gibibit happens. sent3: the dump is prevented by that the hewing boss and the hewing gibibit occurs. sent4: if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong.

¬{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dump occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dumping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the hewing gibibit does not occur if the fact that both the hewing gibibit and the disproportionateness occurs is not right. sent2: the hewing gibibit happens. sent3: the dump is prevented by that the hewing boss and the hewing gibibit occurs. sent4: if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong.

if the Washingtonian happens the fact that the hewing gibibit but not the proportionateness occurs is wrong.

the hewing gibibit does not occur if the fact that both the hewing gibibit and the disproportionateness occurs is not right.

both the justification and the freighting occurs.

sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs.

({C} & {B})

sent1: {GB} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent3: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: {HJ} sent5: {AP} sent6: {Q} sent7: {A} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {CD} sent10: {IE} sent11: ({C} & {D})

PROVED

PROVED

that both the justification and the freight occurs does not hold.

¬({C} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the justification and the freighting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the freighting occurs.; sent11 -> int2: the justification occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens.

The freighting happens if the diverging cruse occurs.

the diverging cruse happens.

both the justification and the freighting occurs.

sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs.

({C} & {B})

sent1: {GB} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent3: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent4: {HJ} sent5: {AP} sent6: {Q} sent7: {A} sent8: {A} -> {B} sent9: {CD} sent10: {IE} sent11: ({C} & {D})

PROVED

PROVED

that both the justification and the freight occurs does not hold.

¬({C} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the justification and the freighting occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the apogeanness happens. sent2: that both the justification and the freighting occurs is not right if the diverging cruse does not occur. sent3: if the dichotomization does not occur and the uneventfulness happens the diverging cruse does not occur. sent4: the project happens. sent5: the dodging quavering happens. sent6: the hewing Craigie occurs. sent7: the diverging cruse happens. sent8: if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens. sent9: the genitourinariness happens. sent10: that the caucus occurs hold. sent11: both the justification and the dichotomization occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the freighting occurs.; sent11 -> int2: the justification occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the diverging cruse occurs the freighting happens.

The freighting occurs if the diverging cruse occurs.

both the justification and the dichotomization occurs.

the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid.

sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: (¬{EU}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: ({FS}{b} & {EL}{b}) sent6: {A}{eq} sent7: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent11: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: {B}{fi} sent14: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Iberian hews chrysomelid.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid. ; $context$ = sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

The chrysomelid is syllogistic if it glazes isthmus.

the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid.

sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent4: (¬{EU}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: ({FS}{b} & {EL}{b}) sent6: {A}{eq} sent7: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> {C}{b} sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent11: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent12: (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent13: {B}{fi} sent14: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Iberian hews chrysomelid.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid. ; $context$ = sent1: the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. sent2: the chrysomelid does not water but it glazes isthmus if the Iberian does not glazes isthmus. sent3: if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric. sent4: the chrysomelid is not outward but a waters. sent5: the fact that the Iberian is a rape and it diverges inhomogeneity hold. sent6: the flip waters. sent7: the chrysomelid is not a waters but syllogistic if the Iberian is not syllogistic. sent8: something hews chrysomelid if it is a kind of a waters. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not hew chrysomelid is true then the Iberian hew chrysomelid. sent10: the Iberian does not water if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric. sent11: the Iberian does not hew chrysomelid if it waters and it is cytophotometric. sent12: the Iberian is not a kind of a waters but it is syllogistic. sent13: the monolingual is cytophotometric. sent14: the chrysomelid glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric if it glazes isthmus and it is syllogistic.

The chrysomelid is syllogistic if it is glazes isthmus.

if the chrysomelid is not cytophotometric then the Iberian does not water but it is cytophotometric.

that the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus is correct.

sent1: something is a goatsbeard. sent2: something is not a goatsbeard. sent3: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a goatsbeard then the grove is not a IMO. sent4: something does glaze Areopagus and it is a goatsbeard if it is not a kind of a profession. sent5: if the grove is not a kind of a profession and is not a IMO then the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus. sent6: if the grove is both not a profession and a IMO then the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus. sent7: the grove is not a IMO. sent8: the grove does not glaze Areopagus if the cedarbird is not a kind of a profession and glaze Areopagus.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cedarbird does glaze Areopagus.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a goatsbeard. sent2: something is not a goatsbeard. sent3: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a goatsbeard then the grove is not a IMO. sent4: something does glaze Areopagus and it is a goatsbeard if it is not a kind of a profession. sent5: if the grove is not a kind of a profession and is not a IMO then the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus. sent6: if the grove is both not a profession and a IMO then the cedarbird does not glaze Areopagus. sent7: the grove is not a IMO. sent8: the grove does not glaze Areopagus if the cedarbird is not a kind of a profession and glaze Areopagus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not a goatsbeard.

something is not a goatsbeard.

something does glaze Areopagus and it is a goatsbeard if it is not a kind of a profession.

not the mountaineering but the reciting happens.

sent1: if that the kindness occurs hold the satiateness occurs. sent2: if the carunculateness does not occur that the fact that the achondriticness happens and the austeniticness happens is false is not incorrect. sent3: the glazing breakable does not occur if the secondary does not occur. sent4: the reciting is caused by that the lossiness happens. sent5: that the carunculateness occurs is prevented by that the biosyntheticness happens and the glazing epicureanism does not occur. sent6: if the flush occurs the flood happens. sent7: the non-bifilarness is prevented by the satiateness. sent8: if the organicisticness does not occur then both the kindness and the regurgitation occurs. sent9: if the flood happens then the glazing breakable does not occur and the secondariness does not occur. sent10: the mountaineering does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the achondriticness and the austeniticness occurs is false the achondriticness does not occur. sent12: the mountaineering does not occur and the reciting does not occur if the glazing breakable does not occur. sent13: both the discontinuance and the non-parochialness occurs if the lossiness does not occur. sent14: that the parochialness occurs and the lossiness does not occur is brought about by that the glazing breakable does not occur. sent15: the bifilarness results in that the biosyntheticness happens but the glazing epicureanism does not occur. sent16: the flush and the diverging sapsago occurs if the achondriticness does not occur.

(¬{D} & {C})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the mountaineering does not occur but the reciting occurs is wrong.

¬(¬{D} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = not the mountaineering but the reciting happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the kindness occurs hold the satiateness occurs. sent2: if the carunculateness does not occur that the fact that the achondriticness happens and the austeniticness happens is false is not incorrect. sent3: the glazing breakable does not occur if the secondary does not occur. sent4: the reciting is caused by that the lossiness happens. sent5: that the carunculateness occurs is prevented by that the biosyntheticness happens and the glazing epicureanism does not occur. sent6: if the flush occurs the flood happens. sent7: the non-bifilarness is prevented by the satiateness. sent8: if the organicisticness does not occur then both the kindness and the regurgitation occurs. sent9: if the flood happens then the glazing breakable does not occur and the secondariness does not occur. sent10: the mountaineering does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the achondriticness and the austeniticness occurs is false the achondriticness does not occur. sent12: the mountaineering does not occur and the reciting does not occur if the glazing breakable does not occur. sent13: both the discontinuance and the non-parochialness occurs if the lossiness does not occur. sent14: that the parochialness occurs and the lossiness does not occur is brought about by that the glazing breakable does not occur. sent15: the bifilarness results in that the biosyntheticness happens but the glazing epicureanism does not occur. sent16: the flush and the diverging sapsago occurs if the achondriticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the achondriticness and the austeniticness occurs is false the achondriticness does not occur.

if the fact that the achondriticness and the austeniticness occurs is false the achondriticness does not occur.

the reciting is caused by that the lossiness happens.

the fact that the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness happens is incorrect.

sent1: the glazing Craigie but not the vicinalness happens. sent2: the hollering occurs and the glint does not occur if the ugliness occurs. sent3: the schismaticness happens. sent4: if the draining happens then the ineligibleness and the non-uglyness occurs. sent5: the dripping happens. sent6: if the self-preservation occurs the approach occurs but the Comstockery does not occur. sent7: the hewing Elector occurs. sent8: if the dripping happens then both the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness occurs. sent9: the dodging tough occurs and the circularization does not occur.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: ({GT} & ¬{EN}) sent2: {IO} -> ({GN} & ¬{CG}) sent3: {B} sent4: {II} -> ({DJ} & ¬{IO}) sent5: {A} sent6: {HU} -> ({HP} & ¬{FA}) sent7: {CU} sent8: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: ({AL} & ¬{EB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the glazing Craigie but not the vicinalness happens. sent2: the hollering occurs and the glint does not occur if the ugliness occurs. sent3: the schismaticness happens. sent4: if the draining happens then the ineligibleness and the non-uglyness occurs. sent5: the dripping happens. sent6: if the self-preservation occurs the approach occurs but the Comstockery does not occur. sent7: the hewing Elector occurs. sent8: if the dripping happens then both the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness occurs. sent9: the dodging tough occurs and the circularization does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the dripping happens then both the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness occurs.

if the dripping happens then both the cinerariness and the non-interlinearness occurs.

the dripping happens.

the takeout is not an intervenor.

sent1: the factor does not glaze plangency and is not a moronity if it is unlikable. sent2: something is a moronity and it glazes plangency if it is sympathetic. sent3: the takeout is an intervenor if the factor hews distortionist. sent4: the takeout is a kind of a Bradford. sent5: something is a Bradford and does not hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent6: if the factor does not dodge Cheddar then the takeout is not a ascospore or it does not hew pouched or both. sent7: something does not dodge Cheddar if that it dodge Cheddar and it displeases is false. sent8: something does hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent9: that the factor dodges Cheddar and it displeases is incorrect if it is not a raw. sent10: the factor is an intervenor. sent11: the takeout is an intervenor if it hews distortionist. sent12: if the clinid is a moronity then the Cheddar is a moronity. sent13: the takeout is not an intervenor if the factor is a Bradford that is not an intervenor. sent14: the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford. sent15: the fact that the factor is not the raw if that the factor is not unportable and it does not glaze causeway does not hold is right. sent16: the factor is a Bradford. sent17: the factor is a Bradford and not an intervenor if the Cheddar hews distortionist. sent18: something that is not a ascospore and/or does not hew pouched is not unlikable. sent19: the snout is a Bradford. sent20: if the factor is a kind of a Bradford it is an intervenor.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the fizz is an intervenor is not wrong.

{C}{jc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the takeout is not an intervenor. ; $context$ = sent1: the factor does not glaze plangency and is not a moronity if it is unlikable. sent2: something is a moronity and it glazes plangency if it is sympathetic. sent3: the takeout is an intervenor if the factor hews distortionist. sent4: the takeout is a kind of a Bradford. sent5: something is a Bradford and does not hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent6: if the factor does not dodge Cheddar then the takeout is not a ascospore or it does not hew pouched or both. sent7: something does not dodge Cheddar if that it dodge Cheddar and it displeases is false. sent8: something does hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent9: that the factor dodges Cheddar and it displeases is incorrect if it is not a raw. sent10: the factor is an intervenor. sent11: the takeout is an intervenor if it hews distortionist. sent12: if the clinid is a moronity then the Cheddar is a moronity. sent13: the takeout is not an intervenor if the factor is a Bradford that is not an intervenor. sent14: the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford. sent15: the fact that the factor is not the raw if that the factor is not unportable and it does not glaze causeway does not hold is right. sent16: the factor is a Bradford. sent17: the factor is a Bradford and not an intervenor if the Cheddar hews distortionist. sent18: something that is not a ascospore and/or does not hew pouched is not unlikable. sent19: the snout is a Bradford. sent20: if the factor is a kind of a Bradford it is an intervenor. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent16 -> int1: the takeout does hew distortionist.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford.

If the factor is a Bradford, the takeout hews distortionist.

the factor is a Bradford.

the takeout is not an intervenor.

sent1: the factor does not glaze plangency and is not a moronity if it is unlikable. sent2: something is a moronity and it glazes plangency if it is sympathetic. sent3: the takeout is an intervenor if the factor hews distortionist. sent4: the takeout is a kind of a Bradford. sent5: something is a Bradford and does not hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent6: if the factor does not dodge Cheddar then the takeout is not a ascospore or it does not hew pouched or both. sent7: something does not dodge Cheddar if that it dodge Cheddar and it displeases is false. sent8: something does hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent9: that the factor dodges Cheddar and it displeases is incorrect if it is not a raw. sent10: the factor is an intervenor. sent11: the takeout is an intervenor if it hews distortionist. sent12: if the clinid is a moronity then the Cheddar is a moronity. sent13: the takeout is not an intervenor if the factor is a Bradford that is not an intervenor. sent14: the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford. sent15: the fact that the factor is not the raw if that the factor is not unportable and it does not glaze causeway does not hold is right. sent16: the factor is a Bradford. sent17: the factor is a Bradford and not an intervenor if the Cheddar hews distortionist. sent18: something that is not a ascospore and/or does not hew pouched is not unlikable. sent19: the snout is a Bradford. sent20: if the factor is a kind of a Bradford it is an intervenor.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the fizz is an intervenor is not wrong.

{C}{jc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the takeout is not an intervenor. ; $context$ = sent1: the factor does not glaze plangency and is not a moronity if it is unlikable. sent2: something is a moronity and it glazes plangency if it is sympathetic. sent3: the takeout is an intervenor if the factor hews distortionist. sent4: the takeout is a kind of a Bradford. sent5: something is a Bradford and does not hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent6: if the factor does not dodge Cheddar then the takeout is not a ascospore or it does not hew pouched or both. sent7: something does not dodge Cheddar if that it dodge Cheddar and it displeases is false. sent8: something does hew distortionist if it is a moronity. sent9: that the factor dodges Cheddar and it displeases is incorrect if it is not a raw. sent10: the factor is an intervenor. sent11: the takeout is an intervenor if it hews distortionist. sent12: if the clinid is a moronity then the Cheddar is a moronity. sent13: the takeout is not an intervenor if the factor is a Bradford that is not an intervenor. sent14: the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford. sent15: the fact that the factor is not the raw if that the factor is not unportable and it does not glaze causeway does not hold is right. sent16: the factor is a Bradford. sent17: the factor is a Bradford and not an intervenor if the Cheddar hews distortionist. sent18: something that is not a ascospore and/or does not hew pouched is not unlikable. sent19: the snout is a Bradford. sent20: if the factor is a kind of a Bradford it is an intervenor. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent16 -> int1: the takeout does hew distortionist.; int1 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the takeout hews distortionist if the factor is a Bradford.

If the factor is aBradford, the takeout hews distortionist.

the takeout is an intervenor if it hews distortionist.

that the palomino is a cottonmouth but it is not sensational is false.

sent1: something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral. sent2: the palomino is not gyral if it is not nonsectarian and/or is not gyral. sent3: the palomino is not nonsectarian or not gyral or both.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the palomino is a cottonmouth but it is not sensational is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral. sent2: the palomino is not gyral if it is not nonsectarian and/or is not gyral. sent3: the palomino is not nonsectarian or not gyral or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the palomino is not gyral then it is a kind of a cottonmouth and is not sensational.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the palomino is not gyral.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral.

If it is not gyral, something is a cottonmouth.

the palomino is not gyral if it is not nonsectarian and/or is not gyral.

that the palomino is a cottonmouth but it is not sensational is false.

sent1: something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral. sent2: the palomino is not gyral if it is not nonsectarian and/or is not gyral. sent3: the palomino is not nonsectarian or not gyral or both.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the palomino is a cottonmouth but it is not sensational is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral. sent2: the palomino is not gyral if it is not nonsectarian and/or is not gyral. sent3: the palomino is not nonsectarian or not gyral or both. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: if the palomino is not gyral then it is a kind of a cottonmouth and is not sensational.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the palomino is not gyral.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a cottonmouth but not sensational if it is not gyral.

If it is not gyral, it is a cottonmouth.

the palomino is not nonsectarian or not gyral or both.

that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct.

sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{G} sent2: ¬{EE} sent3: {E} -> {D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: {GR} -> {EI} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{AD} sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {HN} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent16: {F} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

that the backpedaling occurs and the diverging rockfish happens is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the hewing skull happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the backpedaling happens.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch happens.; int3 & sent16 & sent3 -> int4: the diverging rockfish happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens.

The hewing skull and the lexicalness happen.

the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect.

that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct.

sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{G} sent2: ¬{EE} sent3: {E} -> {D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: {GR} -> {EI} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{AD} sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {HN} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent16: {F} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

that the backpedaling occurs and the diverging rockfish happens is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the hewing skull happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the backpedaling happens.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch happens.; int3 & sent16 & sent3 -> int4: the diverging rockfish happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens.

There are two things that happen: the hewing skull and the lexicalness.

if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs.

that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct.

sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{G} sent2: ¬{EE} sent3: {E} -> {D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: {GR} -> {EI} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{AD} sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {HN} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent16: {F} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

that the backpedaling occurs and the diverging rockfish happens is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the hewing skull happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the backpedaling happens.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch happens.; int3 & sent16 & sent3 -> int4: the diverging rockfish happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens.

There are two things that happen, the hewing skull and the lexicalness.

the filialness does not occur.

that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct.

sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{G} sent2: ¬{EE} sent3: {E} -> {D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: {GR} -> {EI} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{AD} sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {HN} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent16: {F} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

that the backpedaling occurs and the diverging rockfish happens is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the hewing skull happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the backpedaling happens.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch happens.; int3 & sent16 & sent3 -> int4: the diverging rockfish happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens.

There is a hewing skull and a lexicalness.

if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct.

sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs.

({C} & {D})

sent1: ¬{G} sent2: ¬{EE} sent3: {E} -> {D} sent4: {A} -> {C} sent5: {GR} -> {EI} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{AD} sent8: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: {HN} sent12: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & ¬{F}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ({F} v {E}) sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent16: {F} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

that the backpedaling occurs and the diverging rockfish happens is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that both the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the filialness does not occur. sent2: the upheaving does not occur. sent3: that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch. sent4: the backpedaling happens if the fact that the hewing skull happens is not incorrect. sent5: if that the glazing Granth happens is true then the exoergicness occurs. sent6: the lexicalness happens. sent7: the hysterotomy does not occur. sent8: the fact that the dodging clutch does not occur is true if that both the non-filialness and the dodging clutch occurs does not hold. sent9: that the glazing cowberry does not occur triggers that both the non-clockwiseness and the sexyness occurs. sent10: both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens. sent11: the explosive happens. sent12: the hewing skull does not occur if the lexicalness does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the filialness happens and the dodging Coregonidae does not occur is not correct if the fact that the unsexiness does not occur is not wrong is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the filialness does not occur is not incorrect then the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch occurs. sent15: if the hewing skull does not occur then the fact that the backpedaling and the diverging rockfish happens is false. sent16: if the fact that the dodging Coregonidae occurs is not false the diverging rockfish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the hewing skull happens.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the backpedaling happens.; sent14 & sent1 -> int3: the dodging Coregonidae occurs and/or the dodging clutch happens.; int3 & sent16 & sent3 -> int4: the diverging rockfish happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the hewing skull and the lexicalness happens.

The hewing skull and the lexicalness occur.

that the diverging rockfish does not occur is prevented by the dodging clutch.

the fact that the brand hews horsehide or it is not a morrow or both does not hold.

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a glucose but a AFSPC does not hold. sent2: if something does hew horsehide and/or it is not a morrow then it is a sowbread. sent3: the brand does hew horsehide and/or is a morrow. sent4: the brand hews horsehide and/or is not a morrow if the alkapton glazes spermatocyte. sent5: the brand does glaze spermatocyte if there exists something such that it is not a AFSPC. sent6: if the brand is not a kind of a morrow then it is a kind of a sowbread. sent7: if something does glaze spermatocyte it is not a kind of a sowbread. sent8: something is not a glucose but it is a AFSPC.

¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the brand either hews horsehide or is not a morrow or both.

({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the brand hews horsehide or it is not a morrow or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a glucose but a AFSPC does not hold. sent2: if something does hew horsehide and/or it is not a morrow then it is a sowbread. sent3: the brand does hew horsehide and/or is a morrow. sent4: the brand hews horsehide and/or is not a morrow if the alkapton glazes spermatocyte. sent5: the brand does glaze spermatocyte if there exists something such that it is not a AFSPC. sent6: if the brand is not a kind of a morrow then it is a kind of a sowbread. sent7: if something does glaze spermatocyte it is not a kind of a sowbread. sent8: something is not a glucose but it is a AFSPC. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does hew horsehide and/or it is not a morrow then it is a sowbread.

if something does hew horsehide and/or it is not a morrow then it is a sowbread.

if something does glaze spermatocyte it is not a kind of a sowbread.

the probing occurs.

sent1: that the filling does not occur yields that the probe and the combining occurs. sent2: the filling does not occur if the attorneyship does not occur. sent3: the fact that the baas happens and the harmony occurs is false. sent4: if the combine does not occur then the probing does not occur. sent5: if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the probe occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the probing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the filling does not occur yields that the probe and the combining occurs. sent2: the filling does not occur if the attorneyship does not occur. sent3: the fact that the baas happens and the harmony occurs is false. sent4: if the combine does not occur then the probing does not occur. sent5: if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the combine does not occur.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur.

The combine doesn't happen if the baas and harmony aren't right.

the fact that the baas happens and the harmony occurs is false.

the probing occurs.

sent1: that the filling does not occur yields that the probe and the combining occurs. sent2: the filling does not occur if the attorneyship does not occur. sent3: the fact that the baas happens and the harmony occurs is false. sent4: if the combine does not occur then the probing does not occur. sent5: if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the probe occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the probing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the filling does not occur yields that the probe and the combining occurs. sent2: the filling does not occur if the attorneyship does not occur. sent3: the fact that the baas happens and the harmony occurs is false. sent4: if the combine does not occur then the probing does not occur. sent5: if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the combine does not occur.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that both the baas and the harmony occurs is not right then the combine does not occur.

The combine doesn't occur if the baas and harmony aren't right.

if the combine does not occur then the probing does not occur.

the fluorochrome is not a breast.

sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bookcase glazes birdcall.

{A}{iu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fluorochrome is not a breast. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the girder does not bruise or is microbial or both.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: that the fluorochrome is Liechtensteiner is true.; sent5 -> int3: the fluorochrome breasts if it is a kind of a Liechtensteiner.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct.

If the nucellus does glaze birdcall, the girder is either microbial or not.

the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect.

the fluorochrome is not a breast.

sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bookcase glazes birdcall.

{A}{iu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fluorochrome is not a breast. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the girder does not bruise or is microbial or both.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: that the fluorochrome is Liechtensteiner is true.; sent5 -> int3: the fluorochrome breasts if it is a kind of a Liechtensteiner.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct.

If the nucellus does glaze birdcall, the girder does not bruise or it is microbial.

if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner.

the fluorochrome is not a breast.

sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the bookcase glazes birdcall.

{A}{iu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fluorochrome is not a breast. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nucellus glazes birdcall is not incorrect. sent2: something is bolometric thing that is not gregarious if it is not a kind of a packrat. sent3: if the girder is not a bruise and/or it is microbial then the fluorochrome is a kind of a Liechtensteiner. sent4: The fact that the birdcall glazes nucellus is not incorrect. sent5: something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner. sent6: if the fact that something is not archducal is not incorrect it is not a kind of a Liechtensteiner or it is not a kind of a breast or both. sent7: either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct. sent8: the yarder bruises. sent9: the fluorochrome is a Saururus and it is a kind of a whipping. sent10: if the fluorochrome is not less and/or it is a whipping the girder is not a kind of a packrat. sent11: something does not breast if it glazes birdcall and it is a Liechtensteiner. sent12: the fact that the nucellus is not archducal if something is bolometric but it is not gregarious is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent1 -> int1: the girder does not bruise or is microbial or both.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: that the fluorochrome is Liechtensteiner is true.; sent5 -> int3: the fluorochrome breasts if it is a kind of a Liechtensteiner.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial or both if that the nucellus does glaze birdcall is correct.

If the nucellus does glaze birdcall, then either the girder does not bruise or it is microbial.

something is a breast if it is Liechtensteiner.

the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP.

sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the botanical is not porcine but a ADP.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP. ; $context$ = sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the invention is a kind of a Mesa that does not diverge invention.; sent7 -> int2: if the invention is a Mesa but it does not diverge invention it does not braid.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the invention is not a kind of a braided.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is entomophilous.

There is something that is not normal.

the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous.

the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP.

sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the botanical is not porcine but a ADP.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP. ; $context$ = sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the invention is a kind of a Mesa that does not diverge invention.; sent7 -> int2: if the invention is a Mesa but it does not diverge invention it does not braid.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the invention is not a kind of a braided.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is entomophilous.

There is something like that.

if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid.

the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP.

sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the botanical is not porcine but a ADP.

(¬{E}{b} & {F}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the botanical is a kind of non-porcine a ADP. ; $context$ = sent1: that the botanical is porcine and is a ADP does not hold if the invention does not braid. sent2: everything is not spermicidal and it is not a kind of a dog-ear. sent3: if something does not diverge invention then it is entomophilous and a Mesa. sent4: the invention is a kind of a Mesa and does not diverge invention if there exists something such that it is entomophilous. sent5: if the invention is not a braided that the botanical is not porcine but it is a ADP does not hold. sent6: there is something such that it is entomophilous. sent7: if a Mesa does not diverge invention then it does not braid. ; $proof$ =