Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the columbo is not a Bartlett.

sent1: the columbo is a striker. sent2: if something is a kind of a national but it is not a patisserie then it is not a Bartlett. sent3: the dashiki is a kind of a Bartlett. sent4: the crupper is unstatesmanlike if that it is a Bartlett hold. sent5: the columbo is a national. sent6: something does not diverge cardhouse but it is imperialistic if it is not a best. sent7: if the deerhound is paradigmatic but not a lead then the columbo does not consummate. sent8: the spot is a patisserie and it does glaze neem. sent9: if something is not a patisserie then the fact that it is not a kind of a Bartlett and it is not a kind of a national is not right. sent10: the columbo is a patisserie and a national. sent11: something is national if it is a Bartlett. sent12: something is a kind of a national if that it is a patisserie is not false. sent13: the deerhound is paradigmatic thing that does not lead. sent14: if something does not diverge cardhouse but it is imperialistic then it is not a patisserie. sent15: something is out a national if the fact that it does consummate is wrong. sent16: the particle is a Bartlett. sent17: a patisserie is a Bartlett.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: {GU}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: {C}{jb} sent4: {C}{gh} -> {DE}{gh} sent5: {B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{J}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent7: ({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent8: ({A}{ho} & {AM}{ho}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent13: ({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent15: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({F}x & {B}x) sent16: {C}{ea} sent17: (x): {A}x -> {C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the columbo is not a kind of a Bartlett is true.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the columbo is not a Bartlett. ; $context$ = sent1: the columbo is a striker. sent2: if something is a kind of a national but it is not a patisserie then it is not a Bartlett. sent3: the dashiki is a kind of a Bartlett. sent4: the crupper is unstatesmanlike if that it is a Bartlett hold. sent5: the columbo is a national. sent6: something does not diverge cardhouse but it is imperialistic if it is not a best. sent7: if the deerhound is paradigmatic but not a lead then the columbo does not consummate. sent8: the spot is a patisserie and it does glaze neem. sent9: if something is not a patisserie then the fact that it is not a kind of a Bartlett and it is not a kind of a national is not right. sent10: the columbo is a patisserie and a national. sent11: something is national if it is a Bartlett. sent12: something is a kind of a national if that it is a patisserie is not false. sent13: the deerhound is paradigmatic thing that does not lead. sent14: if something does not diverge cardhouse but it is imperialistic then it is not a patisserie. sent15: something is out a national if the fact that it does consummate is wrong. sent16: the particle is a Bartlett. sent17: a patisserie is a Bartlett. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the columbo is a patisserie.; sent17 -> int2: if the columbo is a patisserie then it is a Bartlett.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the columbo is a patisserie and a national.

the columbo is a patisserie and a national.

a patisserie is a Bartlett.

the aviator is not paschal.

sent1: if the aviator is paschal then it is not accurate and it is a promptness. sent2: if the bluegill is a core then it is paschal. sent3: if the fact that something is a promptness and it does core is incorrect it is not a promptness. sent4: the aviator does diverge albinism. sent5: that the aviator is not a faithful is right. sent6: if something diverges albinism then the fact that it is not a kind of a defroster and it is not a hawk is not true.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the aviator is paschal.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the aviator is not paschal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the aviator is paschal then it is not accurate and it is a promptness. sent2: if the bluegill is a core then it is paschal. sent3: if the fact that something is a promptness and it does core is incorrect it is not a promptness. sent4: the aviator does diverge albinism. sent5: that the aviator is not a faithful is right. sent6: if something diverges albinism then the fact that it is not a kind of a defroster and it is not a hawk is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the aviator is paschal then it is not accurate and it is a promptness.

if the aviator is paschal then it is not accurate and it is a promptness.

if the fact that something is a promptness and it does core is incorrect it is not a promptness.

that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right.

sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the pindolol is the Po if the pindolol is a Spitsbergen is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pindolol is a Po.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

A kind of eudiometer is something that does not Romanize.

the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer.

that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right.

sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the pindolol is the Po if the pindolol is a Spitsbergen is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pindolol is a Po.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

A kind of eudiometer is something that doesn't Romanize.

something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong.

that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right.

sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the horst is not a Blighty and not a Po is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Po if the fact that it is a kind of a Spitsbergen is not wrong. sent2: the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po. sent3: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen if something does not Romanize and is a eudiometer. sent4: something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the pindolol is a Spitsbergen.; sent1 -> int2: the fact that the pindolol is the Po if the pindolol is a Spitsbergen is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pindolol is a Po.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not Romanize and is a kind of a eudiometer.

Something doesn't Romanize and is a kind of eudiometer.

the horst is not a Blighty and it is not a Po if the pindolol is a kind of a Po.

the hydrant is an admonition.

sent1: if the naphthol does diverge Marxist then that that the assessee is not non-real-time and is not a nonce is not correct hold. sent2: something that is a kind of a nonce does not hew aileron and hews radiogram. sent3: if something that is not a chancery is real-time then it is not an admonition. sent4: the hydrant is not a chancery but real-time if there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce.

{D}{a}

sent1: {E}{e} -> ¬({C}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{IH}x & {FN}x) sent3: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the virago does not hew aileron but it does hew radiogram.

(¬{IH}{fh} & {FN}{fh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hydrant is an admonition. ; $context$ = sent1: if the naphthol does diverge Marxist then that that the assessee is not non-real-time and is not a nonce is not correct hold. sent2: something that is a kind of a nonce does not hew aileron and hews radiogram. sent3: if something that is not a chancery is real-time then it is not an admonition. sent4: the hydrant is not a chancery but real-time if there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the hydrant is not a chancery but it is real-time.; sent3 -> int2: the hydrant is not an admonition if it is not a kind of a chancery and is real-time.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce.

It is a kind of nonce.

the hydrant is not a chancery but real-time if there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce.

the hydrant is an admonition.

sent1: if the naphthol does diverge Marxist then that that the assessee is not non-real-time and is not a nonce is not correct hold. sent2: something that is a kind of a nonce does not hew aileron and hews radiogram. sent3: if something that is not a chancery is real-time then it is not an admonition. sent4: the hydrant is not a chancery but real-time if there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce.

{D}{a}

sent1: {E}{e} -> ¬({C}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{IH}x & {FN}x) sent3: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the virago does not hew aileron but it does hew radiogram.

(¬{IH}{fh} & {FN}{fh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hydrant is an admonition. ; $context$ = sent1: if the naphthol does diverge Marxist then that that the assessee is not non-real-time and is not a nonce is not correct hold. sent2: something that is a kind of a nonce does not hew aileron and hews radiogram. sent3: if something that is not a chancery is real-time then it is not an admonition. sent4: the hydrant is not a chancery but real-time if there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the hydrant is not a chancery but it is real-time.; sent3 -> int2: the hydrant is not an admonition if it is not a kind of a chancery and is real-time.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a kind of a nonce.

A kind of nonce is what it is.

if something that is not a chancery is real-time then it is not an admonition.

something does not hew beastliness and it does not gesticulate.

sent1: the hipflask does not gesticulate. sent2: the fact that the housedog does not diverge picul is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that something does not immigrate and is not a Eisenstaedt is false if it is not inoperable. sent4: there is something such that that it does hew beastliness and it does not gesticulate is not incorrect. sent5: the housedog does not encourage and does not hew beastliness. sent6: the fact that something does not encourage and it does not diverge picul is true. sent7: the housedog does diverge picul if the gentleman diverge picul but it is not a microgliacyte. sent8: the gentleman does diverge picul but it is not a kind of a microgliacyte if that the leeway does not encourage is not false. sent9: if the housedog does diverge picul then the fact that the sardonyx gesticulates and does not hew beastliness is wrong. sent10: the swag does not gesticulate. sent11: there exists something such that it does not encourage. sent12: the housedog is not alterable. sent13: the housedog is not an agglomeration and does not bear. sent14: the housedog is not a kind of a grating and is not a welcher. sent15: the housedog is not a kind of a Sagittarius and does not diverge picul. sent16: there exists something such that that it is both a Micah and not a arachnoid is false. sent17: something does not gesticulate if the fact that it does gesticulate and it does not hew beastliness is not true. sent18: the housedog does not diverge backed and it is not a 120. sent19: there exists something such that that it does not evert hold. sent20: the housedog does not diverge picul and it does not gesticulate. sent21: the shopkeeper does not hew beastliness. sent22: if something is not a Micah it is not inoperable.

(Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x)

sent1: ¬{B}{cj} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: (Ex): (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ({A}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent8: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ¬({B}{co} & ¬{C}{co}) sent10: ¬{B}{ho} sent11: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent12: ¬{AL}{a} sent13: (¬{BS}{a} & ¬{GB}{a}) sent14: (¬{GP}{a} & ¬{FA}{a}) sent15: (¬{GL}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent16: (Ex): ¬({I}x & ¬{K}x) sent17: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent18: (¬{U}{a} & ¬{CC}{a}) sent19: (Ex): ¬{EL}x sent20: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent21: ¬{C}{dr} sent22: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬{H}x

PROVED

PROVED

the sardonyx does not gesticulate.

¬{B}{co}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something does not hew beastliness and it does not gesticulate. ; $context$ = sent1: the hipflask does not gesticulate. sent2: the fact that the housedog does not diverge picul is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that something does not immigrate and is not a Eisenstaedt is false if it is not inoperable. sent4: there is something such that that it does hew beastliness and it does not gesticulate is not incorrect. sent5: the housedog does not encourage and does not hew beastliness. sent6: the fact that something does not encourage and it does not diverge picul is true. sent7: the housedog does diverge picul if the gentleman diverge picul but it is not a microgliacyte. sent8: the gentleman does diverge picul but it is not a kind of a microgliacyte if that the leeway does not encourage is not false. sent9: if the housedog does diverge picul then the fact that the sardonyx gesticulates and does not hew beastliness is wrong. sent10: the swag does not gesticulate. sent11: there exists something such that it does not encourage. sent12: the housedog is not alterable. sent13: the housedog is not an agglomeration and does not bear. sent14: the housedog is not a kind of a grating and is not a welcher. sent15: the housedog is not a kind of a Sagittarius and does not diverge picul. sent16: there exists something such that that it is both a Micah and not a arachnoid is false. sent17: something does not gesticulate if the fact that it does gesticulate and it does not hew beastliness is not true. sent18: the housedog does not diverge backed and it is not a 120. sent19: there exists something such that that it does not evert hold. sent20: the housedog does not diverge picul and it does not gesticulate. sent21: the shopkeeper does not hew beastliness. sent22: if something is not a Micah it is not inoperable. ; $proof$ =

sent20 -> int1: the housedog does not gesticulate.; sent5 -> int2: the housedog does not hew beastliness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the housedog does not hew beastliness and does not gesticulate.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the housedog does not diverge picul and it does not gesticulate.

the housedog does not diverge picul and it does not gesticulate.

the housedog does not encourage and does not hew beastliness.

the orientalist is not ratlike.

sent1: the fact that the orientalist is a galoot and it is a corporatist is not correct. sent2: if something is corporatist it is a wits. sent3: if the coronilla is not a collection the fact that the Iberian is a kind of a deerstalker and it does hew lottery is not false. sent4: if there is something such that it is a ninepins that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins does not hold. sent5: that something is a kind of a wits and it is a ninepins is incorrect if it does not intercommunicate. sent6: if the tract is a kind of a Alexandrian the acid is a kind of a ninepins. sent7: everything does not intercommunicate. sent8: the orientalist is not a ninepins. sent9: if the orientalist is not a kind of a ninepins then that it is a galoot and is corporatist is not true. sent10: the orientalist is non-ratlike if it is a kind of a wits and it is a Alexandrian. sent11: that the orientalist is a galoot that is not corporatist does not hold if it is not a ninepins. sent12: if the orientalist is not non-corporatist then it is a wits. sent13: the orientalist is not binary. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold then the forecastle is not ratlike. sent15: the orientalist is both ratlike and Alexandrian if something is not a wits. sent16: if something that is a cragged is not meager then the coronilla is not a collection. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Alexandrian but it is a wits is not true if it is not ratlike. sent18: that something does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold if it hews lottery. sent19: the speck is a galoot. sent20: the minister is a kind of a cragged but it is not meager. sent21: if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits.

¬{C}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins is not true.

¬({EN}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the orientalist is not ratlike. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the orientalist is a galoot and it is a corporatist is not correct. sent2: if something is corporatist it is a wits. sent3: if the coronilla is not a collection the fact that the Iberian is a kind of a deerstalker and it does hew lottery is not false. sent4: if there is something such that it is a ninepins that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins does not hold. sent5: that something is a kind of a wits and it is a ninepins is incorrect if it does not intercommunicate. sent6: if the tract is a kind of a Alexandrian the acid is a kind of a ninepins. sent7: everything does not intercommunicate. sent8: the orientalist is not a ninepins. sent9: if the orientalist is not a kind of a ninepins then that it is a galoot and is corporatist is not true. sent10: the orientalist is non-ratlike if it is a kind of a wits and it is a Alexandrian. sent11: that the orientalist is a galoot that is not corporatist does not hold if it is not a ninepins. sent12: if the orientalist is not non-corporatist then it is a wits. sent13: the orientalist is not binary. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold then the forecastle is not ratlike. sent15: the orientalist is both ratlike and Alexandrian if something is not a wits. sent16: if something that is a cragged is not meager then the coronilla is not a collection. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Alexandrian but it is a wits is not true if it is not ratlike. sent18: that something does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold if it hews lottery. sent19: the speck is a galoot. sent20: the minister is a kind of a cragged but it is not meager. sent21: if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits.

It is a kind of wits if the fact that something is not a corporatist hold does not hold.

that the orientalist is a galoot that is not corporatist does not hold if it is not a ninepins.

the orientalist is not ratlike.

sent1: the fact that the orientalist is a galoot and it is a corporatist is not correct. sent2: if something is corporatist it is a wits. sent3: if the coronilla is not a collection the fact that the Iberian is a kind of a deerstalker and it does hew lottery is not false. sent4: if there is something such that it is a ninepins that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins does not hold. sent5: that something is a kind of a wits and it is a ninepins is incorrect if it does not intercommunicate. sent6: if the tract is a kind of a Alexandrian the acid is a kind of a ninepins. sent7: everything does not intercommunicate. sent8: the orientalist is not a ninepins. sent9: if the orientalist is not a kind of a ninepins then that it is a galoot and is corporatist is not true. sent10: the orientalist is non-ratlike if it is a kind of a wits and it is a Alexandrian. sent11: that the orientalist is a galoot that is not corporatist does not hold if it is not a ninepins. sent12: if the orientalist is not non-corporatist then it is a wits. sent13: the orientalist is not binary. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold then the forecastle is not ratlike. sent15: the orientalist is both ratlike and Alexandrian if something is not a wits. sent16: if something that is a cragged is not meager then the coronilla is not a collection. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Alexandrian but it is a wits is not true if it is not ratlike. sent18: that something does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold if it hews lottery. sent19: the speck is a galoot. sent20: the minister is a kind of a cragged but it is not meager. sent21: if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits.

¬{C}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins is not true.

¬({EN}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the orientalist is not ratlike. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the orientalist is a galoot and it is a corporatist is not correct. sent2: if something is corporatist it is a wits. sent3: if the coronilla is not a collection the fact that the Iberian is a kind of a deerstalker and it does hew lottery is not false. sent4: if there is something such that it is a ninepins that the orientalist is neckless but it is not a ninepins does not hold. sent5: that something is a kind of a wits and it is a ninepins is incorrect if it does not intercommunicate. sent6: if the tract is a kind of a Alexandrian the acid is a kind of a ninepins. sent7: everything does not intercommunicate. sent8: the orientalist is not a ninepins. sent9: if the orientalist is not a kind of a ninepins then that it is a galoot and is corporatist is not true. sent10: the orientalist is non-ratlike if it is a kind of a wits and it is a Alexandrian. sent11: that the orientalist is a galoot that is not corporatist does not hold if it is not a ninepins. sent12: if the orientalist is not non-corporatist then it is a wits. sent13: the orientalist is not binary. sent14: if there exists something such that that it does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold then the forecastle is not ratlike. sent15: the orientalist is both ratlike and Alexandrian if something is not a wits. sent16: if something that is a cragged is not meager then the coronilla is not a collection. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Alexandrian but it is a wits is not true if it is not ratlike. sent18: that something does not screen and does not intercommunicate does not hold if it hews lottery. sent19: the speck is a galoot. sent20: the minister is a kind of a cragged but it is not meager. sent21: if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the fact that something is a galoot and is not a corporatist hold does not hold then it is a kind of a wits.

It is a kind of wits if the fact that something is not a corporatist hold doesn't hold.

the orientalist is not a ninepins.

the witchgrass is a conformist.

sent1: there exists something such that it is not a ivorybill and it commingles inference. sent2: the fact that something is perceptual hold. sent3: there are non-heavy-duty and perceptual things. sent4: everything is a Mendelism. sent5: if the haemoproteid does commingle inference the minnow is a ivorybill. sent6: the witchgrass is not nonconformist if the minnow is a ivorybill. sent7: something either does not commingle inference or is not a ivorybill or both if it is a Mendelism.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the witchgrass is not a kind of a conformist.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the witchgrass is a conformist. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not a ivorybill and it commingles inference. sent2: the fact that something is perceptual hold. sent3: there are non-heavy-duty and perceptual things. sent4: everything is a Mendelism. sent5: if the haemoproteid does commingle inference the minnow is a ivorybill. sent6: the witchgrass is not nonconformist if the minnow is a ivorybill. sent7: something either does not commingle inference or is not a ivorybill or both if it is a Mendelism. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is a Mendelism.

everything is a Mendelism.

something either does not commingle inference or is not a ivorybill or both if it is a Mendelism.

the housemother is not a kind of a worst.

sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent2: ¬{IR}{a} sent3: ¬{D}{c} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: {F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (¬{GJ}{a} & {R}{a}) sent8: ¬{A}{dh} sent9: ¬{IU}{a} sent10: (¬{AS}{br} & {B}{br}) sent11: ¬{D}{cl} sent12: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: {B}{a} sent15: (x): (¬{CL}x & {CA}x) -> ¬{FS}x sent16: {C}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the housemother is a worst.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housemother is not a kind of a worst. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the housemother is not acrocentric and is Gandhian.; sent6 -> int2: if the housemother is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then it is not morphophonemics.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the housemother is not morphophonemics.; sent1 -> int4: if the housemother is not morphophonemics the fact that it is not a kind of a worst is not false.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the housemother is not acrocentric.

The house mother is not a snob.

the housemother is Gandhian.

the housemother is not a kind of a worst.

sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent2: ¬{IR}{a} sent3: ¬{D}{c} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: {F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (¬{GJ}{a} & {R}{a}) sent8: ¬{A}{dh} sent9: ¬{IU}{a} sent10: (¬{AS}{br} & {B}{br}) sent11: ¬{D}{cl} sent12: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: {B}{a} sent15: (x): (¬{CL}x & {CA}x) -> ¬{FS}x sent16: {C}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the housemother is a worst.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housemother is not a kind of a worst. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the housemother is not acrocentric and is Gandhian.; sent6 -> int2: if the housemother is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then it is not morphophonemics.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the housemother is not morphophonemics.; sent1 -> int4: if the housemother is not morphophonemics the fact that it is not a kind of a worst is not false.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the housemother is not acrocentric.

The housemother is not a snob.

if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong.

the housemother is not a kind of a worst.

sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics.

¬{D}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent2: ¬{IR}{a} sent3: ¬{D}{c} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent5: {F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (¬{GJ}{a} & {R}{a}) sent8: ¬{A}{dh} sent9: ¬{IU}{a} sent10: (¬{AS}{br} & {B}{br}) sent11: ¬{D}{cl} sent12: (x): ¬({E}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} sent14: {B}{a} sent15: (x): (¬{CL}x & {CA}x) -> ¬{FS}x sent16: {C}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the housemother is a worst.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the housemother is not a kind of a worst. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics. sent2: the housemother is not stenographic. sent3: the Mull is not a kind of a worst. sent4: the housemother is not non-worst and not non-acrocentric if the liger is not Gandhian. sent5: that the liger achieves or it is not morphophonemics or both does not hold if it is parturient. sent6: if something is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then that it is not morphophonemics is not wrong. sent7: the housemother is not an umbilical and does whizz. sent8: the blast is not acrocentric. sent9: that the housemother is not an intern hold. sent10: the cabin does not disturb but it is Gandhian. sent11: the cocuswood is not worst. sent12: something is not Gandhian if that it achieves and/or is not morphophonemics is not right. sent13: the housemother is not acrocentric. sent14: the housemother is Gandhian. sent15: something is not a choke if it does not commingle seasoning and does commingle Mull. sent16: the sub-assembly is morphophonemics. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the housemother is not acrocentric and is Gandhian.; sent6 -> int2: if the housemother is not acrocentric but it is Gandhian then it is not morphophonemics.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the housemother is not morphophonemics.; sent1 -> int4: if the housemother is not morphophonemics the fact that it is not a kind of a worst is not false.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the housemother is not acrocentric.

The house mother is not acrocentric.

something does not worst if it is not morphophonemics.

the sicklepod is a Camembert.

sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the sicklepod is a Camembert. ; $context$ = sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and not a outwork is incorrect if it does prize sicklepod.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork is incorrect.; sent4 -> int4: if the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold it is not a Camembert.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold.

It is not a outwork and it is not ducal if there is a prize for it.

the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric.

the sicklepod is a Camembert.

sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the sicklepod is a Camembert. ; $context$ = sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and not a outwork is incorrect if it does prize sicklepod.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork is incorrect.; sent4 -> int4: if the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold it is not a Camembert.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold.

If the prize is not ducal and it is not an outwork, it does not hold.

the pyrrhotite is a turmeric.

the sicklepod is a Camembert.

sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the sicklepod is a Camembert. ; $context$ = sent1: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod if the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent2: if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold. sent3: the pyrrhotite is a turmeric. sent4: something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and not a outwork is incorrect if it does prize sicklepod.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: the sicklepod does prize sicklepod.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork is incorrect.; sent4 -> int4: if the fact that the sicklepod is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold it is not a Camembert.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does prize sicklepod that it is not ducal and it is not a outwork does not hold.

If it is not a outwork and it is not ducal, then it is not a prize.

something is not a Camembert if that it is both not ducal and not a outwork is false.

the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia.

sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{DA}x & ¬{U}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the brick is not ventral if that it is not Slav and is not a neurohormone does not hold.

¬(¬{DA}{ho} & ¬{U}{ho}) -> ¬{AA}{ho}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the spouse is not a pectoral if the fact that it is non-ventral and it does not moil does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the spouse is not a pectoral.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

It is false to say that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing.

the vitrification is not planetary.

the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia.

sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{DA}x & ¬{U}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the brick is not ventral if that it is not Slav and is not a neurohormone does not hold.

¬(¬{DA}{ho} & ¬{U}{ho}) -> ¬{AA}{ho}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the spouse is not a pectoral if the fact that it is non-ventral and it does not moil does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the spouse is not a pectoral.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

If the vitrification is not planetary, the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing.

something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold.

the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia.

sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{DA}x & ¬{U}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the brick is not ventral if that it is not Slav and is not a neurohormone does not hold.

¬(¬{DA}{ho} & ¬{U}{ho}) -> ¬{AA}{ho}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the edaphosaurus is a Fissipedia. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia. sent2: the vitrification is not planetary. sent3: something is not a kind of a pectoral if that it is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold. sent4: if the fact that something is not a Slav and is not a neurohormone is wrong it is not ventral. sent5: that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the spouse is not a pectoral if the fact that it is non-ventral and it does not moil does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the spouse is not a pectoral.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the spouse is a kind of non-ventral thing that does not moil is false if the vitrification is not planetary.

If the vitrification is not planetary, the spouse is a non-ventral thing.

if the spouse is not a pectoral the edaphosaurus is not a Fissipedia.

the fact that both the non-narrowness and the non-Palladianness happens is incorrect.

sent1: the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent2: that the chemotherapy and the enucleation occurs is right. sent3: the prizing Fuscoboletinus does not occur and the insectivorousness does not occur if the Shona happens. sent4: the hee-hawing does not occur. sent5: the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur if the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent6: the non-narrowness is triggered by the non-northernness. sent7: the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens. sent8: if the fact that the narrowing occurs and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not right then the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent9: that the narrow happens and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not true if the Palladianness happens. sent10: if both the chemotherapy and the dissimilarness occurs the Shonaness occurs. sent11: the northernness does not occur. sent12: that the insectivorousness does not occur triggers that both the prizing trichromacy and the northernness occurs.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{B})

sent1: {A} sent2: ({I} & {L}) sent3: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬{AJ} sent5: {A} -> (¬{GL} & ¬{EU}) sent6: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} sent7: ({A} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬({C} & ¬{A}) -> {A} sent9: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ({I} & ¬{H}) -> {G} sent11: ¬{D} sent12: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur is not false.

(¬{GL} & ¬{EU})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-narrowness and the non-Palladianness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent2: that the chemotherapy and the enucleation occurs is right. sent3: the prizing Fuscoboletinus does not occur and the insectivorousness does not occur if the Shona happens. sent4: the hee-hawing does not occur. sent5: the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur if the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent6: the non-narrowness is triggered by the non-northernness. sent7: the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens. sent8: if the fact that the narrowing occurs and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not right then the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent9: that the narrow happens and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not true if the Palladianness happens. sent10: if both the chemotherapy and the dissimilarness occurs the Shonaness occurs. sent11: the northernness does not occur. sent12: that the insectivorousness does not occur triggers that both the prizing trichromacy and the northernness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the Palladianness does not occur.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the narrowing does not occur hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens.

The Palladianness does not happen.

the non-narrowness is triggered by the non-northernness.

the fact that both the non-narrowness and the non-Palladianness happens is incorrect.

sent1: the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent2: that the chemotherapy and the enucleation occurs is right. sent3: the prizing Fuscoboletinus does not occur and the insectivorousness does not occur if the Shona happens. sent4: the hee-hawing does not occur. sent5: the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur if the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent6: the non-narrowness is triggered by the non-northernness. sent7: the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens. sent8: if the fact that the narrowing occurs and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not right then the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent9: that the narrow happens and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not true if the Palladianness happens. sent10: if both the chemotherapy and the dissimilarness occurs the Shonaness occurs. sent11: the northernness does not occur. sent12: that the insectivorousness does not occur triggers that both the prizing trichromacy and the northernness occurs.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{B})

sent1: {A} sent2: ({I} & {L}) sent3: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬{AJ} sent5: {A} -> (¬{GL} & ¬{EU}) sent6: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} sent7: ({A} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬({C} & ¬{A}) -> {A} sent9: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ({I} & ¬{H}) -> {G} sent11: ¬{D} sent12: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur is not false.

(¬{GL} & ¬{EU})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-narrowness and the non-Palladianness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent2: that the chemotherapy and the enucleation occurs is right. sent3: the prizing Fuscoboletinus does not occur and the insectivorousness does not occur if the Shona happens. sent4: the hee-hawing does not occur. sent5: the stirring does not occur and the hurling does not occur if the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent6: the non-narrowness is triggered by the non-northernness. sent7: the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens. sent8: if the fact that the narrowing occurs and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not right then the prizing trichromacy occurs. sent9: that the narrow happens and the prizing trichromacy does not occur is not true if the Palladianness happens. sent10: if both the chemotherapy and the dissimilarness occurs the Shonaness occurs. sent11: the northernness does not occur. sent12: that the insectivorousness does not occur triggers that both the prizing trichromacy and the northernness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the Palladianness does not occur.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the narrowing does not occur hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prizing trichromacy but not the Palladianness happens.

The Palladianness doesn't happen.

the northernness does not occur.

the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium.

sent1: if something is not vaginal the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. sent2: the cardinal is not vaginal if there is something such that it is a tent. sent3: the venue is not vaginal but it is jihadi if there is something such that it does not commingle odium. sent4: the cardinal is a kind of non-vaginal thing that does commingle odium if there exists something such that it is not jihadi. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize tonometer. sent6: the tonometer does not prefigure canister and is a whitehead. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true. sent8: if there is something such that it is cataplastic the venue is not a sniffler. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is false the cardinal is not vaginal. sent10: the cardinal does not prefigure canister and prefigures loot.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: (x): {AG}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {BN}x sent6: (¬{AA}{fo} & {EM}{fo}) sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): {JH}x -> ¬{DQ}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (¬{AA}{a} & {JG}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not vaginal the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. sent2: the cardinal is not vaginal if there is something such that it is a tent. sent3: the venue is not vaginal but it is jihadi if there is something such that it does not commingle odium. sent4: the cardinal is a kind of non-vaginal thing that does commingle odium if there exists something such that it is not jihadi. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize tonometer. sent6: the tonometer does not prefigure canister and is a whitehead. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true. sent8: if there is something such that it is cataplastic the venue is not a sniffler. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is false the cardinal is not vaginal. sent10: the cardinal does not prefigure canister and prefigures loot. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: the cardinal is not vaginal.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not vaginal.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true.

It is not true that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of finalist.

if there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is false the cardinal is not vaginal.

the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium.

sent1: if something is not vaginal the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. sent2: the cardinal is not vaginal if there is something such that it is a tent. sent3: the venue is not vaginal but it is jihadi if there is something such that it does not commingle odium. sent4: the cardinal is a kind of non-vaginal thing that does commingle odium if there exists something such that it is not jihadi. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize tonometer. sent6: the tonometer does not prefigure canister and is a whitehead. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true. sent8: if there is something such that it is cataplastic the venue is not a sniffler. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is false the cardinal is not vaginal. sent10: the cardinal does not prefigure canister and prefigures loot.

(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: (x): {AG}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {BN}x sent6: (¬{AA}{fo} & {EM}{fo}) sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): {JH}x -> ¬{DQ}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (¬{AA}{a} & {JG}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not vaginal the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium. sent2: the cardinal is not vaginal if there is something such that it is a tent. sent3: the venue is not vaginal but it is jihadi if there is something such that it does not commingle odium. sent4: the cardinal is a kind of non-vaginal thing that does commingle odium if there exists something such that it is not jihadi. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize tonometer. sent6: the tonometer does not prefigure canister and is a whitehead. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true. sent8: if there is something such that it is cataplastic the venue is not a sniffler. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is false the cardinal is not vaginal. sent10: the cardinal does not prefigure canister and prefigures loot. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: the cardinal is not vaginal.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not vaginal.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that the fact that it does not prefigure canister and is a kind of a finalist is not true.

It is not true that it does not figure a canister and is a kind of finalist.

if something is not vaginal the venue is not jihadi but it commingles odium.

the filialness occurs.

sent1: if the typographicness and the capitalisticness occurs then the commingling Hera does not occur. sent2: the typographicness occurs. sent3: the non-filialness and the typographicness occurs if the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the capitalisticness occurs is right.

{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the filialness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the filialness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the typographicness and the capitalisticness occurs then the commingling Hera does not occur. sent2: the typographicness occurs. sent3: the non-filialness and the typographicness occurs if the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the capitalisticness occurs is right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the typographicness occurs.

The meaning of the word occurs.

the fact that the capitalisticness occurs is right.

the filialness occurs.

sent1: if the typographicness and the capitalisticness occurs then the commingling Hera does not occur. sent2: the typographicness occurs. sent3: the non-filialness and the typographicness occurs if the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the capitalisticness occurs is right.

{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the filialness does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the filialness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the typographicness and the capitalisticness occurs then the commingling Hera does not occur. sent2: the typographicness occurs. sent3: the non-filialness and the typographicness occurs if the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the capitalisticness occurs is right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the typographicness occurs.

The lettering happens.

if the typographicness and the capitalisticness occurs then the commingling Hera does not occur.

the machine is not summery.

sent1: a non-affine thing prefigures rectum. sent2: the machine is lexicostatistics if it does not prefigure rectum. sent3: the machine does not prefigure rectum. sent4: The rectum does not prefigure machine. sent5: the quasar is a kind of a writ and it is windward. sent6: the Town is monotypic if it is esophageal and does not prefigure Lamaist. sent7: there exists something such that it does execute. sent8: the chuck does not prefigure rectum. sent9: everything is an affine. sent10: the machine is lexicostatistics. sent11: the Town is monotypic and is an intermediate. sent12: the machine is a kind of a nettle if the naphthoquinone forces repudiation. sent13: if the sibyl is a kind of a Leontief then the naphthoquinone does not force repudiation. sent14: if the sibyl commingles caffeinism then it is a Leontief. sent15: the machine is a kind of lexicostatistics thing that is summery if it does not prefigure rectum. sent16: the machine is a chelonian if something prefigures rectum and it is an affine. sent17: something is a Leontief if it does commingle caffeinism. sent18: the sibyl does prefigure rectum and it does commingle perphenazine if there exists something such that the fact that it executes is true. sent19: if something does not force repudiation then it is not a kind of an affine. sent20: if there is something such that it is monotypic then the naphthoquinone is intermediate and it does commingle caffeinism. sent21: the Town is a kind of esophageal thing that does not prefigure Lamaist. sent22: the machine is a Prometheus and it prizes Devanagari. sent23: if something is a Leontief that it does force repudiation hold.

¬{AB}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{AC}{aa} sent5: ({II}{di} & {FN}{di}) sent6: ({I}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> {G}{d} sent7: (Ex): {K}x sent8: ¬{A}{at} sent9: (x): {B}x sent10: {AA}{a} sent11: ({G}{d} & {F}{d}) sent12: {C}{b} -> {FJ}{a} sent13: {D}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent14: {E}{c} -> {D}{c} sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {EQ}{a} sent17: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent18: (x): {K}x -> ({A}{c} & {H}{c}) sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x sent20: (x): {G}x -> ({F}{b} & {E}{b}) sent21: ({I}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent22: ({IK}{a} & {EJ}{a}) sent23: (x): {D}x -> {C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the machine is not summery.

¬{AB}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the machine is not summery. ; $context$ = sent1: a non-affine thing prefigures rectum. sent2: the machine is lexicostatistics if it does not prefigure rectum. sent3: the machine does not prefigure rectum. sent4: The rectum does not prefigure machine. sent5: the quasar is a kind of a writ and it is windward. sent6: the Town is monotypic if it is esophageal and does not prefigure Lamaist. sent7: there exists something such that it does execute. sent8: the chuck does not prefigure rectum. sent9: everything is an affine. sent10: the machine is lexicostatistics. sent11: the Town is monotypic and is an intermediate. sent12: the machine is a kind of a nettle if the naphthoquinone forces repudiation. sent13: if the sibyl is a kind of a Leontief then the naphthoquinone does not force repudiation. sent14: if the sibyl commingles caffeinism then it is a Leontief. sent15: the machine is a kind of lexicostatistics thing that is summery if it does not prefigure rectum. sent16: the machine is a chelonian if something prefigures rectum and it is an affine. sent17: something is a Leontief if it does commingle caffeinism. sent18: the sibyl does prefigure rectum and it does commingle perphenazine if there exists something such that the fact that it executes is true. sent19: if something does not force repudiation then it is not a kind of an affine. sent20: if there is something such that it is monotypic then the naphthoquinone is intermediate and it does commingle caffeinism. sent21: the Town is a kind of esophageal thing that does not prefigure Lamaist. sent22: the machine is a Prometheus and it prizes Devanagari. sent23: if something is a Leontief that it does force repudiation hold. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent3 -> int1: the machine is lexicostatistics and is summery.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the machine is a kind of lexicostatistics thing that is summery if it does not prefigure rectum.

the machine is a kind of lexicostatistics thing that is summery if it does not prefigure rectum.

the machine does not prefigure rectum.

the antitauon is undemonstrative.

sent1: the dinghy is not a Pinctada and solarizes if there is something such that it housebreaks. sent2: something does solarize if it mythicizes. sent3: the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky. sent4: the Shetland is not undemonstrative if that the glyph is a kind of undemonstrative thing that is not a Pinctada is not true. sent5: everything is geophytic or it housebreaks or both. sent6: the anjou housebreaks. sent7: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake does housebreak. sent8: the fact that the antitauon is a kind of a nursery hold. sent9: the antitauon is not undemonstrative if that the anjou is undemonstrative but it does not solarize is not true. sent10: the antitauon is not a kind of a Pinctada. sent11: something is photic if it does prize presidency. sent12: if the antitauon is not a Pinctada then it mythicizes. sent13: the glyph mythicizes if the redhead does mythicizes and is not photic. sent14: something is a Chekhov if it does prize Annunciation. sent15: if something that does not mythicize solarizes then it is undemonstrative. sent16: the granadillo does not mythicize. sent17: if something is photic then it does not mythicize. sent18: if the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky the fact that it is geophytic and it does prize presidency is correct. sent19: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake is geophytic.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): {H}x -> (¬{D}{dc} & {C}{dc}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent3: ¬{I}{dc} sent4: ¬({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (x): ({G}x v {H}x) sent6: {H}{a} sent7: {H}{e} -> {F}{d} sent8: {HP}{aa} sent9: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: ¬{D}{aa} sent11: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent12: ¬{D}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent13: ({A}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {A}{c} sent14: (x): {DR}x -> {IC}x sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent16: ¬{A}{ig} sent17: (x): {E}x -> ¬{A}x sent18: ¬{I}{dc} -> ({G}{dc} & {F}{dc}) sent19: {G}{e} -> {F}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dinghy is undemonstrative.

{B}{dc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the antitauon is undemonstrative. ; $context$ = sent1: the dinghy is not a Pinctada and solarizes if there is something such that it housebreaks. sent2: something does solarize if it mythicizes. sent3: the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky. sent4: the Shetland is not undemonstrative if that the glyph is a kind of undemonstrative thing that is not a Pinctada is not true. sent5: everything is geophytic or it housebreaks or both. sent6: the anjou housebreaks. sent7: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake does housebreak. sent8: the fact that the antitauon is a kind of a nursery hold. sent9: the antitauon is not undemonstrative if that the anjou is undemonstrative but it does not solarize is not true. sent10: the antitauon is not a kind of a Pinctada. sent11: something is photic if it does prize presidency. sent12: if the antitauon is not a Pinctada then it mythicizes. sent13: the glyph mythicizes if the redhead does mythicizes and is not photic. sent14: something is a Chekhov if it does prize Annunciation. sent15: if something that does not mythicize solarizes then it is undemonstrative. sent16: the granadillo does not mythicize. sent17: if something is photic then it does not mythicize. sent18: if the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky the fact that it is geophytic and it does prize presidency is correct. sent19: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake is geophytic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does solarize if it mythicizes.

If it mythicizes, something does solarize.

if the antitauon is not a Pinctada then it mythicizes.

the antitauon is undemonstrative.

sent1: the dinghy is not a Pinctada and solarizes if there is something such that it housebreaks. sent2: something does solarize if it mythicizes. sent3: the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky. sent4: the Shetland is not undemonstrative if that the glyph is a kind of undemonstrative thing that is not a Pinctada is not true. sent5: everything is geophytic or it housebreaks or both. sent6: the anjou housebreaks. sent7: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake does housebreak. sent8: the fact that the antitauon is a kind of a nursery hold. sent9: the antitauon is not undemonstrative if that the anjou is undemonstrative but it does not solarize is not true. sent10: the antitauon is not a kind of a Pinctada. sent11: something is photic if it does prize presidency. sent12: if the antitauon is not a Pinctada then it mythicizes. sent13: the glyph mythicizes if the redhead does mythicizes and is not photic. sent14: something is a Chekhov if it does prize Annunciation. sent15: if something that does not mythicize solarizes then it is undemonstrative. sent16: the granadillo does not mythicize. sent17: if something is photic then it does not mythicize. sent18: if the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky the fact that it is geophytic and it does prize presidency is correct. sent19: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake is geophytic.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): {H}x -> (¬{D}{dc} & {C}{dc}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent3: ¬{I}{dc} sent4: ¬({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (x): ({G}x v {H}x) sent6: {H}{a} sent7: {H}{e} -> {F}{d} sent8: {HP}{aa} sent9: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: ¬{D}{aa} sent11: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent12: ¬{D}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent13: ({A}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {A}{c} sent14: (x): {DR}x -> {IC}x sent15: (x): (¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent16: ¬{A}{ig} sent17: (x): {E}x -> ¬{A}x sent18: ¬{I}{dc} -> ({G}{dc} & {F}{dc}) sent19: {G}{e} -> {F}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dinghy is undemonstrative.

{B}{dc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the antitauon is undemonstrative. ; $context$ = sent1: the dinghy is not a Pinctada and solarizes if there is something such that it housebreaks. sent2: something does solarize if it mythicizes. sent3: the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky. sent4: the Shetland is not undemonstrative if that the glyph is a kind of undemonstrative thing that is not a Pinctada is not true. sent5: everything is geophytic or it housebreaks or both. sent6: the anjou housebreaks. sent7: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake does housebreak. sent8: the fact that the antitauon is a kind of a nursery hold. sent9: the antitauon is not undemonstrative if that the anjou is undemonstrative but it does not solarize is not true. sent10: the antitauon is not a kind of a Pinctada. sent11: something is photic if it does prize presidency. sent12: if the antitauon is not a Pinctada then it mythicizes. sent13: the glyph mythicizes if the redhead does mythicizes and is not photic. sent14: something is a Chekhov if it does prize Annunciation. sent15: if something that does not mythicize solarizes then it is undemonstrative. sent16: the granadillo does not mythicize. sent17: if something is photic then it does not mythicize. sent18: if the dinghy is not a Tarkovsky the fact that it is geophytic and it does prize presidency is correct. sent19: the redhead prizes presidency if the Wake is geophytic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something does solarize if it mythicizes.

If it mythicizes, it does solarize.

the antitauon is not a kind of a Pinctada.

there exists something such that if it is not a scalar that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is wrong.

sent1: the fact that that the polystyrene is both not scalar and metastable is not true is correct if it is not a kind of a self-preservation. sent2: that something does prefigure begonia and it does commingle bedder is incorrect if it is not a kind of a scalar. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder. sent4: there is something such that if it is not dyadic the fact that it does commingle Scaramouch and it is a kind of a partiality is not correct. sent5: if the blast is not a kind of a scalar then that it prefigures begonia and commingles bedder does not hold. sent6: the fact that the necktie is not probabilistic and commingles Milady does not hold if it prefigures exode. sent7: something that is not corporatist is not achlorhydric but Caesarian. sent8: the fact that the blast does not prefigure begonia but it commingles bedder if the blast is not scalar is correct. sent9: if something is not a kind of a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and commingles bedder. sent10: if that the blast is not a mooring hold then the fact that it does not prize kingbolt and it commingles Kreisler is not right. sent11: that the blast is both not a scow and amalgamative does not hold if the fact that it does not commingle demography is right. sent12: if the blast is a kind of a scalar then the fact that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is false. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a scalar then the fact that it prefigures begonia and it commingles bedder is not right. sent14: if the blast is dyadic the fact that it is not a kind of a echoencephalogram and commingles bedder is not right. sent15: there exists something such that if it does not haul then the fact that it is syncretic and it is an appearance is wrong. sent16: that the skidpan is a kind of non-unmilitary thing that does commingle bedder does not hold if it does not correlate. sent17: that the blast does not prefigure begonia but it is unargumentative is wrong if it does not prefigure chug. sent18: there exists something such that if it is scalar that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is not correct. sent19: the fact that something does not prefigure begonia but it does commingle bedder is false if it is a scalar.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: ¬{FR}{bk} -> ¬(¬{A}{bk} & {DK}{bk}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{JH}x -> ¬({GF}x & {JI}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {BB}{eo} -> ¬(¬{IJ}{eo} & {FC}{eo}) sent7: (x): ¬{DF}x -> (¬{K}x & {AF}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: ¬{HK}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DB}{aa} & {CB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{IA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{T}{aa} & {AD}{aa}) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent14: {JH}{aa} -> ¬(¬{L}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{IQ}x -> ¬({GO}x & {GC}x) sent16: ¬{FQ}{gu} -> ¬(¬{BI}{gu} & {AB}{gu}) sent17: ¬{DJ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {FT}{aa}) sent18: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent19: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a scalar that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that the polystyrene is both not scalar and metastable is not true is correct if it is not a kind of a self-preservation. sent2: that something does prefigure begonia and it does commingle bedder is incorrect if it is not a kind of a scalar. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder. sent4: there is something such that if it is not dyadic the fact that it does commingle Scaramouch and it is a kind of a partiality is not correct. sent5: if the blast is not a kind of a scalar then that it prefigures begonia and commingles bedder does not hold. sent6: the fact that the necktie is not probabilistic and commingles Milady does not hold if it prefigures exode. sent7: something that is not corporatist is not achlorhydric but Caesarian. sent8: the fact that the blast does not prefigure begonia but it commingles bedder if the blast is not scalar is correct. sent9: if something is not a kind of a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and commingles bedder. sent10: if that the blast is not a mooring hold then the fact that it does not prize kingbolt and it commingles Kreisler is not right. sent11: that the blast is both not a scow and amalgamative does not hold if the fact that it does not commingle demography is right. sent12: if the blast is a kind of a scalar then the fact that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is false. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not a scalar then the fact that it prefigures begonia and it commingles bedder is not right. sent14: if the blast is dyadic the fact that it is not a kind of a echoencephalogram and commingles bedder is not right. sent15: there exists something such that if it does not haul then the fact that it is syncretic and it is an appearance is wrong. sent16: that the skidpan is a kind of non-unmilitary thing that does commingle bedder does not hold if it does not correlate. sent17: that the blast does not prefigure begonia but it is unargumentative is wrong if it does not prefigure chug. sent18: there exists something such that if it is scalar that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is not correct. sent19: the fact that something does not prefigure begonia but it does commingle bedder is false if it is a scalar. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is not a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder.

there is something such that if it is not a scalar then it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder.

there exists something such that if it is scalar that it does not prefigure begonia and does commingle bedder is not correct.

the currier is an expressionism.

sent1: the currier is not androgynous. sent2: that the pisser is not a porterage and is not unsociable is not correct if it shrimps. sent3: the carpospore is not an expressionism. sent4: if the currier is not an expressionism it is not promotional. sent5: the currier does prefigure backlog and is not unlucky. sent6: something is an expressionism and is a fielding if it does not commingle Mariehamn. sent7: if the pisser educates then the fact that it does commingle Mariehamn hold. sent8: the pisser educates if that it is both not a porterage and a sociable is false. sent9: the pisser does force tuille or it is felicitous or both. sent10: if the currier is an indium and it is promotional then it is not a fielding. sent11: something is both endermic and not an indium if it is an expressionism. sent12: the fact that the currier is not promotional is not incorrect. sent13: the currier is not a kind of a pyemia if it is harsh and it is non-promotional. sent14: if the votary does not educate then it is both an ironside and not a pheno-safranine. sent15: the currier fields. sent16: if the currier is an indium that is not promotional it is not a fielding.

{A}{a}

sent1: ¬{IQ}{a} sent2: {I}{b} -> ¬(¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{gn} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: ({U}{a} & ¬{EK}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent7: {D}{b} -> {C}{b} sent8: ¬(¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent9: ({J}{b} v {K}{b}) sent10: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ({HM}x & ¬{AA}x) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} sent13: ({JK}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{EC}{a} sent14: ¬{D}{u} -> ({DK}{u} & ¬{ET}{u}) sent15: {B}{a} sent16: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the currier is not an expressionism is not false.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the currier is an expressionism. ; $context$ = sent1: the currier is not androgynous. sent2: that the pisser is not a porterage and is not unsociable is not correct if it shrimps. sent3: the carpospore is not an expressionism. sent4: if the currier is not an expressionism it is not promotional. sent5: the currier does prefigure backlog and is not unlucky. sent6: something is an expressionism and is a fielding if it does not commingle Mariehamn. sent7: if the pisser educates then the fact that it does commingle Mariehamn hold. sent8: the pisser educates if that it is both not a porterage and a sociable is false. sent9: the pisser does force tuille or it is felicitous or both. sent10: if the currier is an indium and it is promotional then it is not a fielding. sent11: something is both endermic and not an indium if it is an expressionism. sent12: the fact that the currier is not promotional is not incorrect. sent13: the currier is not a kind of a pyemia if it is harsh and it is non-promotional. sent14: if the votary does not educate then it is both an ironside and not a pheno-safranine. sent15: the currier fields. sent16: if the currier is an indium that is not promotional it is not a fielding. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the pisser educates then the fact that it does commingle Mariehamn hold.

if the pisser educates then the fact that it does commingle Mariehamn hold.

the currier is not androgynous.

that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold.

sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood.

¬({D}{b} v ¬{F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus.; sent4 -> int2: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood if it does not prefigure softy and it prizes hippopotamus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an embodiment.

An embodiment is something.

if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus.

that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold.

sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood.

¬({D}{b} v ¬{F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus.; sent4 -> int2: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood if it does not prefigure softy and it prizes hippopotamus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an embodiment.

It is an embodiment.

something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood.

that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold.

sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood.

¬({D}{b} v ¬{F}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that either the cricketer does prefigure personhood or it does not smooth or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it is a kind of an embodiment is true the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and prizes hippopotamus. sent2: if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth. sent3: something is an embodiment. sent4: something that does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus does not prefigure personhood. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the blanquillo does not prefigure softy and does prize hippopotamus.; sent4 -> int2: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood if it does not prefigure softy and it prizes hippopotamus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an embodiment.

Something is a representation.

if the blanquillo does not prefigure personhood the cricketer does prefigure personhood and/or it is not smooth.

there exists something such that if that it is non-Romany thing that is not a Kissimmee does not hold that it does not prize normality hold.

sent1: there is something such that if it is a Romany it does not prize normality. sent2: if that the flatworm is not bedless and not implausible is false it is not Romany. sent3: the ouzo does not prize normality if it is a kind of non-Romany thing that is not a Kissimmee. sent4: there is something such that if it is not Hebraic and is not follicular then it is non-guttural. sent5: if the fact that the ouzo is non-Romany a Kissimmee is not correct then it does not prize normality. sent6: there is something such that if that it does not prefigure Saxony and is a toxicology is false then it is not a kind of an additive.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬(¬{BJ}{cj} & ¬{G}{cj}) -> ¬{AA}{cj} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AS}x & ¬{HA}x) -> ¬{DO}x sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{CI}x & {BF}x) -> ¬{U}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is non-Romany thing that is not a Kissimmee does not hold that it does not prize normality hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a Romany it does not prize normality. sent2: if that the flatworm is not bedless and not implausible is false it is not Romany. sent3: the ouzo does not prize normality if it is a kind of non-Romany thing that is not a Kissimmee. sent4: there is something such that if it is not Hebraic and is not follicular then it is non-guttural. sent5: if the fact that the ouzo is non-Romany a Kissimmee is not correct then it does not prize normality. sent6: there is something such that if that it does not prefigure Saxony and is a toxicology is false then it is not a kind of an additive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a Romany it does not prize normality.

there is something such that if it is a Romany it does not prize normality.

there is something such that if that it does not prefigure Saxony and is a toxicology is false then it is not a kind of an additive.

the ombudsman is not Stravinskyan.

sent1: the voltage does not keratinize. sent2: the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of a Marconi if that it is a slum that is not a Marconi does not hold is not false. sent4: that that the anoa is a kind of a slum but it is not a Marconi is not correct if there exists something such that it does not slum hold. sent5: the eurypterid is an inspectorate if it does not prize SSRI and it is a kind of a Saxony. sent6: the ombudsman is not a Sitwell. sent7: if something that is not a unionism is Stravinskyan it commingles wake. sent8: the fact that the introvert does gross is right. sent9: the ombudsman does slum. sent10: the bacteroid is Stravinskyan. sent11: if the ombudsman does keratinize and it is a jest it is not restless. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is actinic and forces voltage is false. sent13: the anoa is a kind of a redeployment if the introvert is not non-gross. sent14: if something is a kind of a redeployment then it is both not a unionism and Stravinskyan. sent15: that the ombudsman is not a Davys but it is wasteful is not incorrect. sent16: if that something is literate thing that is a lunatic is incorrect then that it is not a slum is right. sent17: the fact that the ombudsman is a Lygaeidae hold. sent18: the ombudsman does not keratinize but it is a kind of a Saxony. sent19: the uncle is not a kind of a Saxony. sent20: that the ombudsman is a literate and a lunatic is not right if the stagehand does not force voltage.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ¬{AA}{ig} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{CK}x) -> {CK}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{ce} & ¬{CK}{ce}) sent5: (¬{AQ}{hk} & {AB}{hk}) -> {DO}{hk} sent6: ¬{DE}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {AP}x sent8: {E}{b} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {C}{ar} sent11: ({AA}{a} & {AD}{a}) -> ¬{AU}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent13: {E}{b} -> {D}{ce} sent14: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent15: (¬{BH}{a} & {AL}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: {N}{a} sent18: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent19: ¬{AB}{cm} sent20: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({F}{a} & {G}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the anoa does commingle wake and it is a Marconi.

({AP}{ce} & {CK}{ce})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ombudsman is not Stravinskyan. ; $context$ = sent1: the voltage does not keratinize. sent2: the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of a Marconi if that it is a slum that is not a Marconi does not hold is not false. sent4: that that the anoa is a kind of a slum but it is not a Marconi is not correct if there exists something such that it does not slum hold. sent5: the eurypterid is an inspectorate if it does not prize SSRI and it is a kind of a Saxony. sent6: the ombudsman is not a Sitwell. sent7: if something that is not a unionism is Stravinskyan it commingles wake. sent8: the fact that the introvert does gross is right. sent9: the ombudsman does slum. sent10: the bacteroid is Stravinskyan. sent11: if the ombudsman does keratinize and it is a jest it is not restless. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is actinic and forces voltage is false. sent13: the anoa is a kind of a redeployment if the introvert is not non-gross. sent14: if something is a kind of a redeployment then it is both not a unionism and Stravinskyan. sent15: that the ombudsman is not a Davys but it is wasteful is not incorrect. sent16: if that something is literate thing that is a lunatic is incorrect then that it is not a slum is right. sent17: the fact that the ombudsman is a Lygaeidae hold. sent18: the ombudsman does not keratinize but it is a kind of a Saxony. sent19: the uncle is not a kind of a Saxony. sent20: that the ombudsman is a literate and a lunatic is not right if the stagehand does not force voltage. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony.

The ombudsman is a unionism if it does not change it's 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611

the ombudsman does not keratinize but it is a kind of a Saxony.

the ombudsman is not Stravinskyan.

sent1: the voltage does not keratinize. sent2: the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of a Marconi if that it is a slum that is not a Marconi does not hold is not false. sent4: that that the anoa is a kind of a slum but it is not a Marconi is not correct if there exists something such that it does not slum hold. sent5: the eurypterid is an inspectorate if it does not prize SSRI and it is a kind of a Saxony. sent6: the ombudsman is not a Sitwell. sent7: if something that is not a unionism is Stravinskyan it commingles wake. sent8: the fact that the introvert does gross is right. sent9: the ombudsman does slum. sent10: the bacteroid is Stravinskyan. sent11: if the ombudsman does keratinize and it is a jest it is not restless. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is actinic and forces voltage is false. sent13: the anoa is a kind of a redeployment if the introvert is not non-gross. sent14: if something is a kind of a redeployment then it is both not a unionism and Stravinskyan. sent15: that the ombudsman is not a Davys but it is wasteful is not incorrect. sent16: if that something is literate thing that is a lunatic is incorrect then that it is not a slum is right. sent17: the fact that the ombudsman is a Lygaeidae hold. sent18: the ombudsman does not keratinize but it is a kind of a Saxony. sent19: the uncle is not a kind of a Saxony. sent20: that the ombudsman is a literate and a lunatic is not right if the stagehand does not force voltage.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ¬{AA}{ig} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{CK}x) -> {CK}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({A}{ce} & ¬{CK}{ce}) sent5: (¬{AQ}{hk} & {AB}{hk}) -> {DO}{hk} sent6: ¬{DE}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {AP}x sent8: {E}{b} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {C}{ar} sent11: ({AA}{a} & {AD}{a}) -> ¬{AU}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent13: {E}{b} -> {D}{ce} sent14: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent15: (¬{BH}{a} & {AL}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: {N}{a} sent18: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent19: ¬{AB}{cm} sent20: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({F}{a} & {G}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the anoa does commingle wake and it is a Marconi.

({AP}{ce} & {CK}{ce})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ombudsman is not Stravinskyan. ; $context$ = sent1: the voltage does not keratinize. sent2: the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony. sent3: the fact that something is a kind of a Marconi if that it is a slum that is not a Marconi does not hold is not false. sent4: that that the anoa is a kind of a slum but it is not a Marconi is not correct if there exists something such that it does not slum hold. sent5: the eurypterid is an inspectorate if it does not prize SSRI and it is a kind of a Saxony. sent6: the ombudsman is not a Sitwell. sent7: if something that is not a unionism is Stravinskyan it commingles wake. sent8: the fact that the introvert does gross is right. sent9: the ombudsman does slum. sent10: the bacteroid is Stravinskyan. sent11: if the ombudsman does keratinize and it is a jest it is not restless. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it is actinic and forces voltage is false. sent13: the anoa is a kind of a redeployment if the introvert is not non-gross. sent14: if something is a kind of a redeployment then it is both not a unionism and Stravinskyan. sent15: that the ombudsman is not a Davys but it is wasteful is not incorrect. sent16: if that something is literate thing that is a lunatic is incorrect then that it is not a slum is right. sent17: the fact that the ombudsman is a Lygaeidae hold. sent18: the ombudsman does not keratinize but it is a kind of a Saxony. sent19: the uncle is not a kind of a Saxony. sent20: that the ombudsman is a literate and a lunatic is not right if the stagehand does not force voltage. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ombudsman is a unionism if it does not keratinize and it is a Saxony.

The ombudsman is a unionism if it doesn't change it's 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611 888-270-6611

the ombudsman does slum.

the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold.

sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but it is not an imperial.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the touchscreen prefigures Tocharian.; sent14 -> int2: if the fact that the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian is not true then it does not prefigure hogshead.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does commingle Komi.

It does commingle Komi.

the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi.

the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold.

sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but it is not an imperial.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the touchscreen prefigures Tocharian.; sent14 -> int2: if the fact that the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian is not true then it does not prefigure hogshead.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does commingle Komi.

There is something that commingles Komi.

if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead.

the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold.

sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.

¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but it is not an imperial.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the scribble is not a villeinage if that the Tree is a villeinage and it is endocentric does not hold. sent2: something is amphitheatric and commingles promising if it is not a villeinage. sent3: if the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian then the fact that that the macrophage does prefigure hogshead and is not imperial is right is wrong. sent4: if the shirttail does not commingle Komi either the macrophage is not imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both. sent5: something that does not commingle Komi is a kind of a Graptophyllum that is not a kind of an imperial. sent6: if the sodomite is not a salutatory then the CF does commingle Komi and it is a Graptophyllum. sent7: there is something such that it does commingle Komi. sent8: if either something is not an imperial or it prefigures Tocharian or both the touchscreen is not an imperial. sent9: if the CF prefigures hogshead and does commingle Komi then the shirttail does not commingle Komi. sent10: the CF prefigures hogshead if something is amphitheatric thing that does commingle promising. sent11: if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum and it is imperial does not hold. sent12: that the Tree is a villeinage and is endocentric is false. sent13: either the recitalist commingles Annunciation or it is not a kind of a Soweto or both. sent14: if something prefigures Tocharian it does not prefigure hogshead. sent15: the touchscreen does prefigure Tocharian if there exists something such that it does commingle Komi. sent16: that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent15 -> int1: the touchscreen prefigures Tocharian.; sent14 -> int2: if the fact that the touchscreen does not prefigure Tocharian is not true then it does not prefigure hogshead.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.; int3 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does commingle Komi.

It is possible that it commingles Komi.

that the macrophage is a Graptophyllum but not imperial is not correct if the touchscreen does not prefigure hogshead.

the capulin is a kind of an okra and/or it is not causative.

sent1: if the fluorite is not unsuccessful then the bast does not commingle kingcup. sent2: something does not acquire if the fact that it does acquire and is non-shamanist does not hold. sent3: the bast acquires. sent4: the fluorite is sidereal or it is not cyanobacterial or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is shamanist then the capulin is either an okra or noncausative or both. sent6: the bast is an okra and/or it does not acquire. sent7: if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist. sent8: something is a kind of an idleness and it is a Moroccan. sent9: the fact that something acquires and is not shamanist is not right if it does not commingle kingcup. sent10: if an idleness is Moroccan the inkstand is not a kind of a petcock. sent11: the capulin is shamanist and/or it is causative. sent12: the capulin acquires. sent13: either the capulin does acquire or it is not a kind of an okra or both.

({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the capulin is an okra and/or is not causative is not right.

¬({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the capulin is a kind of an okra and/or it is not causative. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fluorite is not unsuccessful then the bast does not commingle kingcup. sent2: something does not acquire if the fact that it does acquire and is non-shamanist does not hold. sent3: the bast acquires. sent4: the fluorite is sidereal or it is not cyanobacterial or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is shamanist then the capulin is either an okra or noncausative or both. sent6: the bast is an okra and/or it does not acquire. sent7: if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist. sent8: something is a kind of an idleness and it is a Moroccan. sent9: the fact that something acquires and is not shamanist is not right if it does not commingle kingcup. sent10: if an idleness is Moroccan the inkstand is not a kind of a petcock. sent11: the capulin is shamanist and/or it is causative. sent12: the capulin acquires. sent13: either the capulin does acquire or it is not a kind of an okra or both. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fluorite is shamanist.; int1 -> int2: something is shamanist.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist.

The bast is a shaman.

the bast acquires.

the capulin is a kind of an okra and/or it is not causative.

sent1: if the fluorite is not unsuccessful then the bast does not commingle kingcup. sent2: something does not acquire if the fact that it does acquire and is non-shamanist does not hold. sent3: the bast acquires. sent4: the fluorite is sidereal or it is not cyanobacterial or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is shamanist then the capulin is either an okra or noncausative or both. sent6: the bast is an okra and/or it does not acquire. sent7: if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist. sent8: something is a kind of an idleness and it is a Moroccan. sent9: the fact that something acquires and is not shamanist is not right if it does not commingle kingcup. sent10: if an idleness is Moroccan the inkstand is not a kind of a petcock. sent11: the capulin is shamanist and/or it is causative. sent12: the capulin acquires. sent13: either the capulin does acquire or it is not a kind of an okra or both.

({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the capulin is an okra and/or is not causative is not right.

¬({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the capulin is a kind of an okra and/or it is not causative. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fluorite is not unsuccessful then the bast does not commingle kingcup. sent2: something does not acquire if the fact that it does acquire and is non-shamanist does not hold. sent3: the bast acquires. sent4: the fluorite is sidereal or it is not cyanobacterial or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is shamanist then the capulin is either an okra or noncausative or both. sent6: the bast is an okra and/or it does not acquire. sent7: if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist. sent8: something is a kind of an idleness and it is a Moroccan. sent9: the fact that something acquires and is not shamanist is not right if it does not commingle kingcup. sent10: if an idleness is Moroccan the inkstand is not a kind of a petcock. sent11: the capulin is shamanist and/or it is causative. sent12: the capulin acquires. sent13: either the capulin does acquire or it is not a kind of an okra or both. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fluorite is shamanist.; int1 -> int2: something is shamanist.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bast does acquire the fluorite is shamanist.

The bast is a shamanist.

if there is something such that it is shamanist then the capulin is either an okra or noncausative or both.

the weigela is corinthian.

sent1: the nitrite is an expressionism. sent2: if the nitrite is small-capitalization then the weigela is corinthian. sent3: if the weigela is a kind of an expressionism that the nitrite is corinthian hold. sent4: the weigela is an expressionism if the nitrite is corinthian. sent5: something is not corinthian if it is an expressionism.

{C}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the weigela is not corinthian hold.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the weigela is corinthian. ; $context$ = sent1: the nitrite is an expressionism. sent2: if the nitrite is small-capitalization then the weigela is corinthian. sent3: if the weigela is a kind of an expressionism that the nitrite is corinthian hold. sent4: the weigela is an expressionism if the nitrite is corinthian. sent5: something is not corinthian if it is an expressionism. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the nitrite is small-capitalization then the weigela is corinthian.

if the nitrite is small-capitalization then the weigela is corinthian.

the weigela is an expressionism if the nitrite is corinthian.

there is something such that if that it is hard and/or is not side does not hold then that it does not prize disaster is true.

sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is stannic and/or it is not extropic is not true it is not scapular. sent2: the fact that the abseiler does prize disaster is not right if the fact that it either is hard or sides or both is incorrect. sent3: if something either redeposits or does not parch or both it is not a kind of a backstitch. sent4: if that the abseiler either is hard or does not side or both does not hold then it does prize disaster. sent5: something that either is hard or is non-side or both does not prize disaster.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): ¬({EP}x v ¬{JK}x) -> ¬{AJ}x sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({BQ}x v ¬{GC}x) -> ¬{FQ}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is hard and/or is not side does not hold then that it does not prize disaster is true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is stannic and/or it is not extropic is not true it is not scapular. sent2: the fact that the abseiler does prize disaster is not right if the fact that it either is hard or sides or both is incorrect. sent3: if something either redeposits or does not parch or both it is not a kind of a backstitch. sent4: if that the abseiler either is hard or does not side or both does not hold then it does prize disaster. sent5: something that either is hard or is non-side or both does not prize disaster. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if the fact that it is stannic and/or it is not extropic is not true it is not scapular.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is stannic and/or it is not extropic is not true it is not scapular.

something that either is hard or is non-side or both does not prize disaster.

the rumble favors.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is a Llyr that is a rectum that the bed does prize Mennonite is not false. sent2: that the rumble is a favor is correct if the bed prizes Mennonite. sent3: the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent3: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rumble favors. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is a Llyr that is a rectum that the bed does prize Mennonite is not false. sent2: that the rumble is a favor is correct if the bed prizes Mennonite. sent3: the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: there is something such that it is a kind of a Llyr and it is a rectum.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the bed prizes Mennonite.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum.

The camisole is a rectum.

if there exists something such that it is a Llyr that is a rectum that the bed does prize Mennonite is not false.

the rumble favors.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is a Llyr that is a rectum that the bed does prize Mennonite is not false. sent2: that the rumble is a favor is correct if the bed prizes Mennonite. sent3: the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum.

{D}{b}

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent3: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rumble favors. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is a Llyr that is a rectum that the bed does prize Mennonite is not false. sent2: that the rumble is a favor is correct if the bed prizes Mennonite. sent3: the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: there is something such that it is a kind of a Llyr and it is a rectum.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the bed prizes Mennonite.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the camisole is a Llyr and it is a rectum.

There is a rectum and a Llyr in the camisole.

that the rumble is a favor is correct if the bed prizes Mennonite.

that the retiring does not occur is not incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur does not hold. sent2: that the gang happens prevents that the colonoscopy happens. sent3: the fact that that the non-inelasticness and the malignness happens is caused by the colonoscopy hold. sent4: the commingling Irelander does not occur and the custom does not occur if the unactableness occurs. sent5: if the prefiguring spider occurs that not the costing but the orientation happens is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the fragmentation does not occur and the unactableness does not occur is not true if the retiring occurs. sent7: the lesson does not occur and the killing does not occur. sent8: the abdication does not occur. sent9: that the Andalusianness does not occur is prevented by the papillariness. sent10: that the papillariness happens and the prepayment does not occur is incorrect. sent11: if the inelasticness does not occur then the abdication does not occur. sent12: the fact that the prizing buffalofish occurs is correct. sent13: either the resiling or the ganging or both happens if the orientation does not occur. sent14: if the colonoscopy does not occur that the inelasticness and the malignness happens does not hold. sent15: if the fact that not the costing but the orientation occurs is not true then the orientation does not occur. sent16: if that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur is not right then the Andalusianness happens. sent17: if the Andalusianness occurs the abdication does not occur. sent18: the abdication does not occur if that the inelasticness and the malignness occurs is not true.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {G} -> ¬{F} sent3: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent4: {GD} -> (¬{JF} & ¬{DM}) sent5: {J} -> ¬(¬{K} & {I}) sent6: {A} -> ¬(¬{EO} & ¬{GD}) sent7: (¬{BE} & ¬{U}) sent8: ¬{C} sent9: {AA} -> {B} sent10: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} sent12: {DE} sent13: ¬{I} -> ({H} v {G}) sent14: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent15: ¬(¬{K} & {I}) -> ¬{I} sent16: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent17: {B} -> ¬{C} sent18: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the fragmentation does not occur and the unactableness does not occur does not hold.

¬(¬{EO} & ¬{GD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the retiring does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur does not hold. sent2: that the gang happens prevents that the colonoscopy happens. sent3: the fact that that the non-inelasticness and the malignness happens is caused by the colonoscopy hold. sent4: the commingling Irelander does not occur and the custom does not occur if the unactableness occurs. sent5: if the prefiguring spider occurs that not the costing but the orientation happens is incorrect. sent6: the fact that the fragmentation does not occur and the unactableness does not occur is not true if the retiring occurs. sent7: the lesson does not occur and the killing does not occur. sent8: the abdication does not occur. sent9: that the Andalusianness does not occur is prevented by the papillariness. sent10: that the papillariness happens and the prepayment does not occur is incorrect. sent11: if the inelasticness does not occur then the abdication does not occur. sent12: the fact that the prizing buffalofish occurs is correct. sent13: either the resiling or the ganging or both happens if the orientation does not occur. sent14: if the colonoscopy does not occur that the inelasticness and the malignness happens does not hold. sent15: if the fact that not the costing but the orientation occurs is not true then the orientation does not occur. sent16: if that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur is not right then the Andalusianness happens. sent17: if the Andalusianness occurs the abdication does not occur. sent18: the abdication does not occur if that the inelasticness and the malignness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur is not right then the Andalusianness happens.

if that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur is not right then the Andalusianness happens.

the fact that the papillariness does not occur and the prepayment does not occur does not hold.

that that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is wrong is true.

sent1: the trapezoid does prefigure 120. sent2: if the plaice does not fumble that it does prefigure 120 and it does prefigure fourth does not hold. sent3: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe and does prefigure 120. sent4: the trapezoid is not an absolute if there exists something such that it prizes Gould. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize Gould.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is not right.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is wrong is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the trapezoid does prefigure 120. sent2: if the plaice does not fumble that it does prefigure 120 and it does prefigure fourth does not hold. sent3: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe and does prefigure 120. sent4: the trapezoid is not an absolute if there exists something such that it prizes Gould. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize Gould. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the trapezoid is not absolute is right.; sent3 -> int2: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does prize Gould.

Gould does get something such that it does prize SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA $75 SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the trapezoid is not an absolute if there exists something such that it prizes Gould.

that that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is wrong is true.

sent1: the trapezoid does prefigure 120. sent2: if the plaice does not fumble that it does prefigure 120 and it does prefigure fourth does not hold. sent3: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe and does prefigure 120. sent4: the trapezoid is not an absolute if there exists something such that it prizes Gould. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize Gould.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is not right.

¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the trapezoid is not an absolute but it is a Europe is wrong is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the trapezoid does prefigure 120. sent2: if the plaice does not fumble that it does prefigure 120 and it does prefigure fourth does not hold. sent3: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe and does prefigure 120. sent4: the trapezoid is not an absolute if there exists something such that it prizes Gould. sent5: there exists something such that it does prize Gould. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the trapezoid is not absolute is right.; sent3 -> int2: the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it does prize Gould.

Gould does get something such that it does prize SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA Friendly SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the trapezoid is a kind of a Europe and does prefigure 120.

both the non-archivalness and the non-articularness occurs.

sent1: that the commingling skin-diver occurs but the prefiguring drunk does not occur is not true. sent2: the fact that the crime does not occur hold. sent3: that the archivalness happens is prevented by that either the incongruousness does not occur or the whimper does not occur or both. sent4: that both the non-archivalness and the non-articularness happens does not hold if the fact that the crime occurs is correct. sent5: both the prizing ornamental and the memberlessness occurs if the phytotherapy does not occur. sent6: either the commingling ECC or the chlorophylloseness or both happens. sent7: that the non-archivalness and the non-articularness happens is brought about by that the deflection does not occur. sent8: if that the prefiguring drunk does not occur hold then the commingling skin-diver does not occur. sent9: if the deathblow happens that the non-expedientness and the phytotherapy happens does not hold. sent10: not the whimper but the incongruousness occurs if the laryngospasm does not occur. sent11: if that the expedientness does not occur and the phytotherapy happens is false then the phytotherapy does not occur. sent12: that the deflection does not occur prevents the archivalness. sent13: both the laryngospasm and the informativeness occurs if the commingling skin-diver does not occur. sent14: the laryngospasm triggers that the incongruousness does not occur or the whimper does not occur or both. sent15: that the crime does not occur causes that the commingling ECC does not occur or the chlorophylloseness or both. sent16: the prefiguring drunk does not occur and the trihydroxiness does not occur if the prizing ornamental occurs. sent17: the archivalness does not occur. sent18: if the commingling skin-diver does not occur the informativeness but not the laryngospasm occurs. sent19: the crime and the deflection happens if that the whimper does not occur is correct.

(¬{D} & ¬{C})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the non-archivalness and the non-articularness happens is wrong.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the non-archivalness and the non-articularness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the commingling skin-diver occurs but the prefiguring drunk does not occur is not true. sent2: the fact that the crime does not occur hold. sent3: that the archivalness happens is prevented by that either the incongruousness does not occur or the whimper does not occur or both. sent4: that both the non-archivalness and the non-articularness happens does not hold if the fact that the crime occurs is correct. sent5: both the prizing ornamental and the memberlessness occurs if the phytotherapy does not occur. sent6: either the commingling ECC or the chlorophylloseness or both happens. sent7: that the non-archivalness and the non-articularness happens is brought about by that the deflection does not occur. sent8: if that the prefiguring drunk does not occur hold then the commingling skin-diver does not occur. sent9: if the deathblow happens that the non-expedientness and the phytotherapy happens does not hold. sent10: not the whimper but the incongruousness occurs if the laryngospasm does not occur. sent11: if that the expedientness does not occur and the phytotherapy happens is false then the phytotherapy does not occur. sent12: that the deflection does not occur prevents the archivalness. sent13: both the laryngospasm and the informativeness occurs if the commingling skin-diver does not occur. sent14: the laryngospasm triggers that the incongruousness does not occur or the whimper does not occur or both. sent15: that the crime does not occur causes that the commingling ECC does not occur or the chlorophylloseness or both. sent16: the prefiguring drunk does not occur and the trihydroxiness does not occur if the prizing ornamental occurs. sent17: the archivalness does not occur. sent18: if the commingling skin-diver does not occur the informativeness but not the laryngospasm occurs. sent19: the crime and the deflection happens if that the whimper does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the crime does not occur causes that the commingling ECC does not occur or the chlorophylloseness or both.

that the crime does not occur causes that the commingling ECC does not occur or the chlorophylloseness or both.

the fact that the crime does not occur hold.

the rainstorm is a IPV.

sent1: there exists something such that that it is inconsiderate thing that prefigures stooper is incorrect. sent2: the scaffolding is a kind of a IPV if there is something such that the fact that it does fraternize and it is not procedural is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the comedian fraternizes and is not procedural does not hold. sent4: the wineskin is boreal. sent5: the fact that the scaffolding is a kind of considerate thing that prefigures stooper does not hold if it is a Passover. sent6: the scaffolding is a Passover.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the rainstorm does prefigure stooper.

{AB}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rainstorm is a IPV. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it is inconsiderate thing that prefigures stooper is incorrect. sent2: the scaffolding is a kind of a IPV if there is something such that the fact that it does fraternize and it is not procedural is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the comedian fraternizes and is not procedural does not hold. sent4: the wineskin is boreal. sent5: the fact that the scaffolding is a kind of considerate thing that prefigures stooper does not hold if it is a Passover. sent6: the scaffolding is a Passover. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the scaffolding is a kind of considerate thing that prefigures stooper does not hold if it is a Passover.

the fact that the scaffolding is a kind of considerate thing that prefigures stooper does not hold if it is a Passover.

the scaffolding is a Passover.

the multilingualness does not occur.

sent1: the disembarking occurs. sent2: the oceanicness does not occur but the dash occurs if the commingling oblique does not occur. sent3: if the middle-classness happens that the prefiguring echinus does not occur but the commingling somewhere occurs is not true. sent4: the unseamanlikeness occurs. sent5: if the additive occurs the fact that the multilingualness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the biocatalyticness occurs. sent7: if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens. sent8: if the agape happens the practicalness happens. sent9: that the do-si-do happens yields that the remuneration occurs. sent10: the commingling roping does not occur and the nonvolatileness does not occur if the arenicolousness does not occur. sent11: the fact that if the biocatalyticness does not occur then the fact that the additiveness happens and the multilingualness happens is not correct is true. sent12: if the picture does not occur then the biocatalyticness does not occur. sent13: that the chromatographicness occurs and the middle-classness happens is caused by the non-oceanicness. sent14: the emotionalness occurs. sent15: the pneumonicness does not occur and the commingling oblique does not occur if the nautch does not occur. sent16: the multilingualness does not occur if that the additive occurs and the multilingualness occurs is incorrect. sent17: that the nautch does not occur is caused by that the commingling roping does not occur. sent18: if that the fact that the prefiguring echinus does not occur and the commingling somewhere happens hold does not hold the picture does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {AL} sent2: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent3: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) sent4: {EU} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: {A} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {HL} -> {FO} sent9: {EL} -> {GK} sent10: ¬{P} -> (¬{N} & ¬{O}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent12: ¬{D} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent14: {GQ} sent15: ¬{M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{K}) sent16: ¬({B} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent17: ¬{N} -> ¬{M} sent18: ¬(¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the multilingualness does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the multilingualness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the disembarking occurs. sent2: the oceanicness does not occur but the dash occurs if the commingling oblique does not occur. sent3: if the middle-classness happens that the prefiguring echinus does not occur but the commingling somewhere occurs is not true. sent4: the unseamanlikeness occurs. sent5: if the additive occurs the fact that the multilingualness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the biocatalyticness occurs. sent7: if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens. sent8: if the agape happens the practicalness happens. sent9: that the do-si-do happens yields that the remuneration occurs. sent10: the commingling roping does not occur and the nonvolatileness does not occur if the arenicolousness does not occur. sent11: the fact that if the biocatalyticness does not occur then the fact that the additiveness happens and the multilingualness happens is not correct is true. sent12: if the picture does not occur then the biocatalyticness does not occur. sent13: that the chromatographicness occurs and the middle-classness happens is caused by the non-oceanicness. sent14: the emotionalness occurs. sent15: the pneumonicness does not occur and the commingling oblique does not occur if the nautch does not occur. sent16: the multilingualness does not occur if that the additive occurs and the multilingualness occurs is incorrect. sent17: that the nautch does not occur is caused by that the commingling roping does not occur. sent18: if that the fact that the prefiguring echinus does not occur and the commingling somewhere happens hold does not hold the picture does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the additive occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens.

If the biocatalyticness happens.

the biocatalyticness occurs.

the multilingualness does not occur.

sent1: the disembarking occurs. sent2: the oceanicness does not occur but the dash occurs if the commingling oblique does not occur. sent3: if the middle-classness happens that the prefiguring echinus does not occur but the commingling somewhere occurs is not true. sent4: the unseamanlikeness occurs. sent5: if the additive occurs the fact that the multilingualness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the biocatalyticness occurs. sent7: if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens. sent8: if the agape happens the practicalness happens. sent9: that the do-si-do happens yields that the remuneration occurs. sent10: the commingling roping does not occur and the nonvolatileness does not occur if the arenicolousness does not occur. sent11: the fact that if the biocatalyticness does not occur then the fact that the additiveness happens and the multilingualness happens is not correct is true. sent12: if the picture does not occur then the biocatalyticness does not occur. sent13: that the chromatographicness occurs and the middle-classness happens is caused by the non-oceanicness. sent14: the emotionalness occurs. sent15: the pneumonicness does not occur and the commingling oblique does not occur if the nautch does not occur. sent16: the multilingualness does not occur if that the additive occurs and the multilingualness occurs is incorrect. sent17: that the nautch does not occur is caused by that the commingling roping does not occur. sent18: if that the fact that the prefiguring echinus does not occur and the commingling somewhere happens hold does not hold the picture does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {AL} sent2: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent3: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) sent4: {EU} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: {A} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {HL} -> {FO} sent9: {EL} -> {GK} sent10: ¬{P} -> (¬{N} & ¬{O}) sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent12: ¬{D} -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent14: {GQ} sent15: ¬{M} -> (¬{L} & ¬{K}) sent16: ¬({B} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent17: ¬{N} -> ¬{M} sent18: ¬(¬{F} & {E}) -> ¬{D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the multilingualness does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the multilingualness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the disembarking occurs. sent2: the oceanicness does not occur but the dash occurs if the commingling oblique does not occur. sent3: if the middle-classness happens that the prefiguring echinus does not occur but the commingling somewhere occurs is not true. sent4: the unseamanlikeness occurs. sent5: if the additive occurs the fact that the multilingualness occurs is not wrong. sent6: the biocatalyticness occurs. sent7: if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens. sent8: if the agape happens the practicalness happens. sent9: that the do-si-do happens yields that the remuneration occurs. sent10: the commingling roping does not occur and the nonvolatileness does not occur if the arenicolousness does not occur. sent11: the fact that if the biocatalyticness does not occur then the fact that the additiveness happens and the multilingualness happens is not correct is true. sent12: if the picture does not occur then the biocatalyticness does not occur. sent13: that the chromatographicness occurs and the middle-classness happens is caused by the non-oceanicness. sent14: the emotionalness occurs. sent15: the pneumonicness does not occur and the commingling oblique does not occur if the nautch does not occur. sent16: the multilingualness does not occur if that the additive occurs and the multilingualness occurs is incorrect. sent17: that the nautch does not occur is caused by that the commingling roping does not occur. sent18: if that the fact that the prefiguring echinus does not occur and the commingling somewhere happens hold does not hold the picture does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the additive occurs.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the biocatalyticness happens the additiveness happens.

The biocatalyticness will happen if it happens.

if the additive occurs the fact that the multilingualness occurs is not wrong.

the khesari is not a front-runner.

sent1: the fact that something is a Laney but it does not commingle half-century is false if it is a kind of a wait. sent2: if a petrolatum does prefigure dialect it is not a front-runner. sent3: everything is a wait. sent4: if the begonia is not anaphoric then the khesari does prefigure dialect. sent5: the khesari is a kind of a front-runner and it is anaphoric if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greaves. sent6: the khesari prefigures dialect. sent7: the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric. sent8: the begonia is not a front-runner. sent9: the fact that the begonia is not anaphoric is not false. sent10: if the begonia is anaphoric thing that prefigures dialect then it is not a petrolatum.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the khesari is a kind of a front-runner.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the khesari is not a front-runner. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a Laney but it does not commingle half-century is false if it is a kind of a wait. sent2: if a petrolatum does prefigure dialect it is not a front-runner. sent3: everything is a wait. sent4: if the begonia is not anaphoric then the khesari does prefigure dialect. sent5: the khesari is a kind of a front-runner and it is anaphoric if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greaves. sent6: the khesari prefigures dialect. sent7: the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric. sent8: the begonia is not a front-runner. sent9: the fact that the begonia is not anaphoric is not false. sent10: if the begonia is anaphoric thing that prefigures dialect then it is not a petrolatum. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: the khesari is a petrolatum and it does prefigure dialect.; sent2 -> int2: if the khesari is a petrolatum and it prefigures dialect it is not a front-runner.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric.

The begonia is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if it is not anaphoric.

the fact that the begonia is not anaphoric is not false.

the khesari is not a front-runner.

sent1: the fact that something is a Laney but it does not commingle half-century is false if it is a kind of a wait. sent2: if a petrolatum does prefigure dialect it is not a front-runner. sent3: everything is a wait. sent4: if the begonia is not anaphoric then the khesari does prefigure dialect. sent5: the khesari is a kind of a front-runner and it is anaphoric if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greaves. sent6: the khesari prefigures dialect. sent7: the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric. sent8: the begonia is not a front-runner. sent9: the fact that the begonia is not anaphoric is not false. sent10: if the begonia is anaphoric thing that prefigures dialect then it is not a petrolatum.

¬{B}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the khesari is a kind of a front-runner.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the khesari is not a front-runner. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a Laney but it does not commingle half-century is false if it is a kind of a wait. sent2: if a petrolatum does prefigure dialect it is not a front-runner. sent3: everything is a wait. sent4: if the begonia is not anaphoric then the khesari does prefigure dialect. sent5: the khesari is a kind of a front-runner and it is anaphoric if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greaves. sent6: the khesari prefigures dialect. sent7: the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric. sent8: the begonia is not a front-runner. sent9: the fact that the begonia is not anaphoric is not false. sent10: if the begonia is anaphoric thing that prefigures dialect then it is not a petrolatum. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent9 -> int1: the khesari is a petrolatum and it does prefigure dialect.; sent2 -> int2: if the khesari is a petrolatum and it prefigures dialect it is not a front-runner.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the khesari is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if the begonia is not anaphoric.

The begonia is a petrolatum that prefigures dialect if it isn't anaphoric.

if a petrolatum does prefigure dialect it is not a front-runner.

the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation.

sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

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

sent1: (¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa}) -> {D}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: {CG}{aa} sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent5: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: (¬{HN}{hd} v {JE}{hd}) -> {A}{hd} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x sent9: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: if the take-up does not prize secondo and/or is undrinkable then it does prize feminism.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the take-up does prize feminism.; sent6 -> int3: the metabolite is amblyopic.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the take-up does force solicitation.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

Feminism is won if it does not prize secondo or both.

the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable.

the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation.

sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

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

sent1: (¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa}) -> {D}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: {CG}{aa} sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent5: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: (¬{HN}{hd} v {JE}{hd}) -> {A}{hd} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x sent9: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: if the take-up does not prize secondo and/or is undrinkable then it does prize feminism.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the take-up does prize feminism.; sent6 -> int3: the metabolite is amblyopic.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the take-up does force solicitation.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

Feminism isprized if it does not prize secondo or both.

the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous.

the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation.

sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

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

sent1: (¬{C}{aa} v {A}{aa}) -> {D}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent3: {CG}{aa} sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{aa} sent5: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: (¬{HN}{hd} v {JE}{hd}) -> {A}{hd} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x sent9: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation is incorrect.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the take-up prizes feminism and it does force solicitation. ; $context$ = sent1: if the take-up is not amblyopic or it does force solicitation or both then it is anadromous. sent2: something is anadromous but it does not prize senate if it is not epenthetic. sent3: the take-up is a vigilante. sent4: the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic. sent5: the metabolite does not prize feminism and it is not amblyopic if the Apache is not anadromous. sent6: the metabolite is amblyopic and it is anadromous. sent7: if the hillbilly is not a gastroenterology or is a hulking or both then it forces solicitation. sent8: everything is not epenthetic. sent9: the take-up does not prize secondo and/or it is not drinkable. sent10: something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: if the take-up does not prize secondo and/or is undrinkable then it does prize feminism.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the take-up does prize feminism.; sent6 -> int3: the metabolite is amblyopic.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the take-up does force solicitation.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something prizes feminism if it does not prize secondo or it is undrinkable or both.

Feminism is celebrated if it does not prize secondo or both.

the take-up does force solicitation if the metabolite is amblyopic.

the corundom is either non-aphaeretic or a coalpit or both.

sent1: the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric. sent2: the fact that either the panpipe does not prize caffeinism or it is a cleaver or both is wrong if that there exists something such that it is a ascolichen is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the corundom is not aphaeretic and/or is a kind of a coalpit is false if the vector does not untie. sent4: everything nosedives. sent5: that the dicamptodon does not untie and/or is calorimetric is wrong. sent6: the corundom is not a kind of a coalpit. sent7: the vector does not untie if there exists something such that either it is a ascolichen or it is calorimetric or both. sent8: the ceibo is not calorimetric if it does not untie and does shore. sent9: that that the corundom unties but it is not calorimetric does not hold is not wrong if it is a coalpit. sent10: the vector does not untie if something is calorimetric. sent11: if the fact that something does nosedive is not incorrect then it commingles ungulate and it is not a impracticability. sent12: the fact that something is aphaeretic but it is not secretarial does not hold if it is not a kind of a impracticability. sent13: the corundom is not a coalpit if the vector does not untie. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not calorimetric then the fact that the fomentation is a kind of a ascolichen and is calorimetric is false. sent15: that if there is something such that the fact that it does untie and is not calorimetric does not hold then the vector is a ascolichen hold. sent16: if either the contrabassoon is not a coalpit or it does not shore or both the corundom is a coalpit. sent17: that the contrabassoon is not a ascolichen is correct if the fact that the fomentation is both a ascolichen and calorimetric does not hold.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the panpipe does not prize caffeinism and/or it is a cleaver does not hold.

¬(¬{JH}{ei} v {GI}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the corundom is either non-aphaeretic or a coalpit or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric. sent2: the fact that either the panpipe does not prize caffeinism or it is a cleaver or both is wrong if that there exists something such that it is a ascolichen is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the corundom is not aphaeretic and/or is a kind of a coalpit is false if the vector does not untie. sent4: everything nosedives. sent5: that the dicamptodon does not untie and/or is calorimetric is wrong. sent6: the corundom is not a kind of a coalpit. sent7: the vector does not untie if there exists something such that either it is a ascolichen or it is calorimetric or both. sent8: the ceibo is not calorimetric if it does not untie and does shore. sent9: that that the corundom unties but it is not calorimetric does not hold is not wrong if it is a coalpit. sent10: the vector does not untie if something is calorimetric. sent11: if the fact that something does nosedive is not incorrect then it commingles ungulate and it is not a impracticability. sent12: the fact that something is aphaeretic but it is not secretarial does not hold if it is not a kind of a impracticability. sent13: the corundom is not a coalpit if the vector does not untie. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not calorimetric then the fact that the fomentation is a kind of a ascolichen and is calorimetric is false. sent15: that if there is something such that the fact that it does untie and is not calorimetric does not hold then the vector is a ascolichen hold. sent16: if either the contrabassoon is not a coalpit or it does not shore or both the corundom is a coalpit. sent17: that the contrabassoon is not a ascolichen is correct if the fact that the fomentation is both a ascolichen and calorimetric does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it is a ascolichen and/or calorimetric.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the vector does not untie.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric.

The dicamptodon is a type of calorimetric.

the vector does not untie if there exists something such that either it is a ascolichen or it is calorimetric or both.

the corundom is either non-aphaeretic or a coalpit or both.

sent1: the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric. sent2: the fact that either the panpipe does not prize caffeinism or it is a cleaver or both is wrong if that there exists something such that it is a ascolichen is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the corundom is not aphaeretic and/or is a kind of a coalpit is false if the vector does not untie. sent4: everything nosedives. sent5: that the dicamptodon does not untie and/or is calorimetric is wrong. sent6: the corundom is not a kind of a coalpit. sent7: the vector does not untie if there exists something such that either it is a ascolichen or it is calorimetric or both. sent8: the ceibo is not calorimetric if it does not untie and does shore. sent9: that that the corundom unties but it is not calorimetric does not hold is not wrong if it is a coalpit. sent10: the vector does not untie if something is calorimetric. sent11: if the fact that something does nosedive is not incorrect then it commingles ungulate and it is not a impracticability. sent12: the fact that something is aphaeretic but it is not secretarial does not hold if it is not a kind of a impracticability. sent13: the corundom is not a coalpit if the vector does not untie. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not calorimetric then the fact that the fomentation is a kind of a ascolichen and is calorimetric is false. sent15: that if there is something such that the fact that it does untie and is not calorimetric does not hold then the vector is a ascolichen hold. sent16: if either the contrabassoon is not a coalpit or it does not shore or both the corundom is a coalpit. sent17: that the contrabassoon is not a ascolichen is correct if the fact that the fomentation is both a ascolichen and calorimetric does not hold.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the panpipe does not prize caffeinism and/or it is a cleaver does not hold.

¬(¬{JH}{ei} v {GI}{ei})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the corundom is either non-aphaeretic or a coalpit or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric. sent2: the fact that either the panpipe does not prize caffeinism or it is a cleaver or both is wrong if that there exists something such that it is a ascolichen is not wrong. sent3: the fact that the corundom is not aphaeretic and/or is a kind of a coalpit is false if the vector does not untie. sent4: everything nosedives. sent5: that the dicamptodon does not untie and/or is calorimetric is wrong. sent6: the corundom is not a kind of a coalpit. sent7: the vector does not untie if there exists something such that either it is a ascolichen or it is calorimetric or both. sent8: the ceibo is not calorimetric if it does not untie and does shore. sent9: that that the corundom unties but it is not calorimetric does not hold is not wrong if it is a coalpit. sent10: the vector does not untie if something is calorimetric. sent11: if the fact that something does nosedive is not incorrect then it commingles ungulate and it is not a impracticability. sent12: the fact that something is aphaeretic but it is not secretarial does not hold if it is not a kind of a impracticability. sent13: the corundom is not a coalpit if the vector does not untie. sent14: if there exists something such that it is not calorimetric then the fact that the fomentation is a kind of a ascolichen and is calorimetric is false. sent15: that if there is something such that the fact that it does untie and is not calorimetric does not hold then the vector is a ascolichen hold. sent16: if either the contrabassoon is not a coalpit or it does not shore or both the corundom is a coalpit. sent17: that the contrabassoon is not a ascolichen is correct if the fact that the fomentation is both a ascolichen and calorimetric does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it is a ascolichen and/or calorimetric.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the vector does not untie.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dicamptodon is a kind of a ascolichen and/or it is calorimetric.

There is a possibility that the dicamptodon is calorimetric.

the fact that the corundom is not aphaeretic and/or is a kind of a coalpit is false if the vector does not untie.

the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune.

sent1: if that the teacup does not prefigure locking hold then the fact that the lynx does not commingle crier and does prize longwool does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true. sent3: if the fact that something does not prize pining and is not favorable does not hold then it does prize overlip. sent4: the containment window-shops if the stage is a relinquishment. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a steenbok and is surgical is not correct. sent6: if the stage is a housemaster the containment window-shops. sent7: there is something such that that it is both a aminomethane and a third-rater is not right. sent8: something does not prize longwool if the fact that it does not commingle crier and prize longwool does not hold. sent9: that the delinquent does not prize pining and it is not favorable does not hold if that the lynx does not prize longwool is not wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a spearmint and it is not a kind of a combo is incorrect if that it is a banzai hold. sent11: either the stage is a relinquishment or it is a housemaster or both. sent12: everything is a banzai. sent13: if there is something such that it is ovular the fact that the delinquent is a kind of a steenbok and is carcinomatous hold. sent14: the centerboard is a cohune and it is a steenbok. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a cohune and it is not nonsurgical is not true then the centerboard is a steenbok. sent16: if there is something such that it is not nonsurgical the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune is not true. sent17: something is ovular if it does window-shop. sent18: if the fact that the totalitarian is not a spearmint and it is not a combo is wrong then the teacup does not prefigure locking. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a third-rater is incorrect the centerboard is nonsurgical.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teacup does not prefigure locking hold then the fact that the lynx does not commingle crier and does prize longwool does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true. sent3: if the fact that something does not prize pining and is not favorable does not hold then it does prize overlip. sent4: the containment window-shops if the stage is a relinquishment. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a steenbok and is surgical is not correct. sent6: if the stage is a housemaster the containment window-shops. sent7: there is something such that that it is both a aminomethane and a third-rater is not right. sent8: something does not prize longwool if the fact that it does not commingle crier and prize longwool does not hold. sent9: that the delinquent does not prize pining and it is not favorable does not hold if that the lynx does not prize longwool is not wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a spearmint and it is not a kind of a combo is incorrect if that it is a banzai hold. sent11: either the stage is a relinquishment or it is a housemaster or both. sent12: everything is a banzai. sent13: if there is something such that it is ovular the fact that the delinquent is a kind of a steenbok and is carcinomatous hold. sent14: the centerboard is a cohune and it is a steenbok. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a cohune and it is not nonsurgical is not true then the centerboard is a steenbok. sent16: if there is something such that it is not nonsurgical the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune is not true. sent17: something is ovular if it does window-shop. sent18: if the fact that the totalitarian is not a spearmint and it is not a combo is wrong then the teacup does not prefigure locking. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a third-rater is incorrect the centerboard is nonsurgical. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent19 -> int1: that the centerboard is nonsurgical is right.; sent14 -> int2: the centerboard is a kind of a cohune.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true.

The fact that it is not a third-rater is not true.

if there is something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a third-rater is incorrect the centerboard is nonsurgical.

the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune.

sent1: if that the teacup does not prefigure locking hold then the fact that the lynx does not commingle crier and does prize longwool does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true. sent3: if the fact that something does not prize pining and is not favorable does not hold then it does prize overlip. sent4: the containment window-shops if the stage is a relinquishment. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a steenbok and is surgical is not correct. sent6: if the stage is a housemaster the containment window-shops. sent7: there is something such that that it is both a aminomethane and a third-rater is not right. sent8: something does not prize longwool if the fact that it does not commingle crier and prize longwool does not hold. sent9: that the delinquent does not prize pining and it is not favorable does not hold if that the lynx does not prize longwool is not wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a spearmint and it is not a kind of a combo is incorrect if that it is a banzai hold. sent11: either the stage is a relinquishment or it is a housemaster or both. sent12: everything is a banzai. sent13: if there is something such that it is ovular the fact that the delinquent is a kind of a steenbok and is carcinomatous hold. sent14: the centerboard is a cohune and it is a steenbok. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a cohune and it is not nonsurgical is not true then the centerboard is a steenbok. sent16: if there is something such that it is not nonsurgical the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune is not true. sent17: something is ovular if it does window-shop. sent18: if the fact that the totalitarian is not a spearmint and it is not a combo is wrong then the teacup does not prefigure locking. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a third-rater is incorrect the centerboard is nonsurgical.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune does not hold.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teacup does not prefigure locking hold then the fact that the lynx does not commingle crier and does prize longwool does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true. sent3: if the fact that something does not prize pining and is not favorable does not hold then it does prize overlip. sent4: the containment window-shops if the stage is a relinquishment. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is a steenbok and is surgical is not correct. sent6: if the stage is a housemaster the containment window-shops. sent7: there is something such that that it is both a aminomethane and a third-rater is not right. sent8: something does not prize longwool if the fact that it does not commingle crier and prize longwool does not hold. sent9: that the delinquent does not prize pining and it is not favorable does not hold if that the lynx does not prize longwool is not wrong. sent10: the fact that something is not a spearmint and it is not a kind of a combo is incorrect if that it is a banzai hold. sent11: either the stage is a relinquishment or it is a housemaster or both. sent12: everything is a banzai. sent13: if there is something such that it is ovular the fact that the delinquent is a kind of a steenbok and is carcinomatous hold. sent14: the centerboard is a cohune and it is a steenbok. sent15: if there exists something such that that it is a cohune and it is not nonsurgical is not true then the centerboard is a steenbok. sent16: if there is something such that it is not nonsurgical the fact that the centerboard is nonsurgical and it is a cohune is not true. sent17: something is ovular if it does window-shop. sent18: if the fact that the totalitarian is not a spearmint and it is not a combo is wrong then the teacup does not prefigure locking. sent19: if there is something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a third-rater is incorrect the centerboard is nonsurgical. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent19 -> int1: that the centerboard is nonsurgical is right.; sent14 -> int2: the centerboard is a kind of a cohune.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is a aminomethane and it is not a kind of a third-rater is not true.

It is not true that there is something like a third-rater in this case.

the centerboard is a cohune and it is a steenbok.

there is something such that if that it is not a vagrancy but a inexpedience does not hold then it does prize filled.

sent1: if the daystar is not a kind of a inexpedience it does prize filled. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a inexpedience it prizes filled. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of non-centroidal thing that intumesces is not right then it is a Erethizontidae. sent4: the daystar is a kind of a Hoffman if the fact that it is not a East-sider and it does commingle Talmud does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a vagrancy and it is a kind of a inexpedience is not true then it does prize filled. sent6: the daystar does prize filled if it is both not a vagrancy and a inexpedience. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a vagrancy is a inexpedience then the fact that it prizes filled is not false. sent8: there is something such that if it is both not a vagrancy and a inexpedience it does prize filled. sent9: there is something such that if that it does not prize undercoat and it is a kind of a brooklet is false it laments. sent10: if the fact that something is not a wax but it is a needle is wrong then it does censor. sent11: if that the daystar is both a vagrancy and a inexpedience does not hold then it prizes filled. sent12: there exists something such that if the fact that it is surgical thing that does force Doctor does not hold then it does adolesce. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a vagrancy is not false it does prize filled. sent14: there is something such that if that it is not a tympanist and is dipterous does not hold then it is inexact. sent15: there exists something such that if that it does not prefigure S-shape and is phylogenetic is not correct it does prefigure Lophophora.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AK}x & {IF}x) -> {IL}x sent4: ¬(¬{U}{aa} & {AU}{aa}) -> {AE}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{CO}x & {AR}x) -> {BK}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{EU}x & {EA}x) -> {CN}x sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{BI}x & {BD}x) -> {GD}x sent13: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x & {GU}x) -> {EJ}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{HI}x & {BP}x) -> {DP}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not a vagrancy but a inexpedience does not hold then it does prize filled. ; $context$ = sent1: if the daystar is not a kind of a inexpedience it does prize filled. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a inexpedience it prizes filled. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of non-centroidal thing that intumesces is not right then it is a Erethizontidae. sent4: the daystar is a kind of a Hoffman if the fact that it is not a East-sider and it does commingle Talmud does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if that it is a vagrancy and it is a kind of a inexpedience is not true then it does prize filled. sent6: the daystar does prize filled if it is both not a vagrancy and a inexpedience. sent7: if something that is not a kind of a vagrancy is a inexpedience then the fact that it prizes filled is not false. sent8: there is something such that if it is both not a vagrancy and a inexpedience it does prize filled. sent9: there is something such that if that it does not prize undercoat and it is a kind of a brooklet is false it laments. sent10: if the fact that something is not a wax but it is a needle is wrong then it does censor. sent11: if that the daystar is both a vagrancy and a inexpedience does not hold then it prizes filled. sent12: there exists something such that if the fact that it is surgical thing that does force Doctor does not hold then it does adolesce. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a vagrancy is not false it does prize filled. sent14: there is something such that if that it is not a tympanist and is dipterous does not hold then it is inexact. sent15: there exists something such that if that it does not prefigure S-shape and is phylogenetic is not correct it does prefigure Lophophora. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not a inexpedience it prizes filled.

there exists something such that if it is not a inexpedience it prizes filled.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is surgical thing that does force Doctor does not hold then it does adolesce.

the commoner is not agonadal.

sent1: the commoner is estimable and it is technical. sent2: the aquatint is a kind of a mescal and does not force proctoscope if it is a Nereus. sent3: the naphthol is not a technical. sent4: if the backboard is not a Purace then the commoner does prefigure pedigree. sent5: the commoner is not accessional. sent6: the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical. sent7: the commoner is both a Devanagari and a pickpocket. sent8: if the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional then it is not agonadal. sent9: the backboard is not a kind of a Purace or it is not a thrust or both if it is not a kind of a curacao. sent10: something does force proctoscope if it is a mescal. sent11: the backboard is not a curacao. sent12: the ablation is not agonadal. sent13: if the commoner prefigures pedigree the fact that it is both not a let and not a Nereus is incorrect. sent14: if that something is not a let and is not a Nereus is incorrect then it is a mescal. sent15: the commoner is a technical. sent16: the khamsin is agonadal if the commoner forces proctoscope. sent17: the backboard is not accessional if the aquatint is a kind of a mescal that does not force proctoscope. sent18: if that the backboard is not high-tension and is technical does not hold then the commoner is agonadal.

¬{D}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the khamsin is not a technical.

¬{B}{ak}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commoner is not agonadal. ; $context$ = sent1: the commoner is estimable and it is technical. sent2: the aquatint is a kind of a mescal and does not force proctoscope if it is a Nereus. sent3: the naphthol is not a technical. sent4: if the backboard is not a Purace then the commoner does prefigure pedigree. sent5: the commoner is not accessional. sent6: the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical. sent7: the commoner is both a Devanagari and a pickpocket. sent8: if the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional then it is not agonadal. sent9: the backboard is not a kind of a Purace or it is not a thrust or both if it is not a kind of a curacao. sent10: something does force proctoscope if it is a mescal. sent11: the backboard is not a curacao. sent12: the ablation is not agonadal. sent13: if the commoner prefigures pedigree the fact that it is both not a let and not a Nereus is incorrect. sent14: if that something is not a let and is not a Nereus is incorrect then it is a mescal. sent15: the commoner is a technical. sent16: the khamsin is agonadal if the commoner forces proctoscope. sent17: the backboard is not accessional if the aquatint is a kind of a mescal that does not force proctoscope. sent18: if that the backboard is not high-tension and is technical does not hold then the commoner is agonadal. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the commoner is high-tension.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical.

The commoner is a kind of technical.

the commoner is not accessional.

the commoner is not agonadal.

sent1: the commoner is estimable and it is technical. sent2: the aquatint is a kind of a mescal and does not force proctoscope if it is a Nereus. sent3: the naphthol is not a technical. sent4: if the backboard is not a Purace then the commoner does prefigure pedigree. sent5: the commoner is not accessional. sent6: the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical. sent7: the commoner is both a Devanagari and a pickpocket. sent8: if the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional then it is not agonadal. sent9: the backboard is not a kind of a Purace or it is not a thrust or both if it is not a kind of a curacao. sent10: something does force proctoscope if it is a mescal. sent11: the backboard is not a curacao. sent12: the ablation is not agonadal. sent13: if the commoner prefigures pedigree the fact that it is both not a let and not a Nereus is incorrect. sent14: if that something is not a let and is not a Nereus is incorrect then it is a mescal. sent15: the commoner is a technical. sent16: the khamsin is agonadal if the commoner forces proctoscope. sent17: the backboard is not accessional if the aquatint is a kind of a mescal that does not force proctoscope. sent18: if that the backboard is not high-tension and is technical does not hold then the commoner is agonadal.

¬{D}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the khamsin is not a technical.

¬{B}{ak}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the commoner is not agonadal. ; $context$ = sent1: the commoner is estimable and it is technical. sent2: the aquatint is a kind of a mescal and does not force proctoscope if it is a Nereus. sent3: the naphthol is not a technical. sent4: if the backboard is not a Purace then the commoner does prefigure pedigree. sent5: the commoner is not accessional. sent6: the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical. sent7: the commoner is both a Devanagari and a pickpocket. sent8: if the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional then it is not agonadal. sent9: the backboard is not a kind of a Purace or it is not a thrust or both if it is not a kind of a curacao. sent10: something does force proctoscope if it is a mescal. sent11: the backboard is not a curacao. sent12: the ablation is not agonadal. sent13: if the commoner prefigures pedigree the fact that it is both not a let and not a Nereus is incorrect. sent14: if that something is not a let and is not a Nereus is incorrect then it is a mescal. sent15: the commoner is a technical. sent16: the khamsin is agonadal if the commoner forces proctoscope. sent17: the backboard is not accessional if the aquatint is a kind of a mescal that does not force proctoscope. sent18: if that the backboard is not high-tension and is technical does not hold then the commoner is agonadal. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the commoner is high-tension.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the commoner is not non-high-tension and it is a kind of a technical.

The commoner is a type of technical.

if the commoner is high-tension but it is not accessional then it is not agonadal.

the almsgiver does not prize Cystophora.

sent1: the apogee does prefigure meteorologist. sent2: if that the almsgiver is not a sociable is not false then the icaco does prefigure meteorologist or it is a Horne or both. sent3: something does prize gallbladder and it is a kind of a yew if it is not a kind of a telecommunication. sent4: the fact that something does not prefigure apogee but it is a symbol is not true if it prizes gallbladder. sent5: the almsgiver is polymorphemic if the icaco is not a sociable. sent6: if something does prefigure meteorologist and is not a Horne it does prize Cystophora. sent7: if the fact that either the almsgiver is not a mutant or it is polymorphemic or both is false then it does not prize Cystophora. sent8: if the fact that something is not mutant or it is polymorphemic or both is not correct then it does not prize Cystophora. sent9: if the icaco is unsociable but it is a mutant the almsgiver is not a kind of a unsociable. sent10: that something is a kind of unsociable thing that is mutant hold if it is not polymorphemic. sent11: the almsgiver is polymorphemic. sent12: if the plaice is non-polymorphemic thing that prizes Attica the icaco is not polymorphemic. sent13: something that does not prefigure apogee is not polymorphemic and prizes Attica. sent14: if the icaco is not sociable the fact that the almsgiver is not a kind of a mutant or it is non-polymorphemic or both is not true. sent15: the fisherman does not prefigure indomethacin. sent16: the icaco prefigures meteorologist. sent17: that the icaco does not force cricketer and/or it is temperate is not right. sent18: the comestible is not a telecommunication if the fact that the cricketer is not a telecommunication but it commingles plaice is not true. sent19: the gallbladder does not prefigure meteorologist. sent20: if the fact that the comestible does not prefigure apogee and is a symbol is not right then the plaice does not prefigure apogee. sent21: The meteorologist prefigures icaco. sent22: if the fact that something is either not mutant or not polymorphemic or both is wrong then it does not prize Cystophora. sent23: something is not sociable if it does prefigure meteorologist and it is a kind of a Horne. sent24: if the plaice is not non-mutant and not unsociable then the almsgiver is not a unsociable.

¬{F}{b}

sent1: {A}{hh} sent2: ¬{C}{b} -> ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{L}x -> ({I}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{H}x & {J}x) sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent6: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {F}x sent7: ¬(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v {D}x) -> ¬{F}x sent9: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {E}x) sent11: {D}{b} sent12: (¬{D}{c} & {G}{c}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{D}x & {G}x) sent14: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent15: ¬{N}{f} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: ¬(¬{IM}{a} v ¬{GU}{a}) sent18: ¬(¬{L}{e} & {M}{e}) -> ¬{L}{d} sent19: ¬{A}{cm} sent20: ¬(¬{H}{d} & {J}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent21: {AA}{aa} sent22: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{F}x sent23: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent24: ({E}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the almsgiver prizes Cystophora.

{F}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the almsgiver does not prize Cystophora. ; $context$ = sent1: the apogee does prefigure meteorologist. sent2: if that the almsgiver is not a sociable is not false then the icaco does prefigure meteorologist or it is a Horne or both. sent3: something does prize gallbladder and it is a kind of a yew if it is not a kind of a telecommunication. sent4: the fact that something does not prefigure apogee but it is a symbol is not true if it prizes gallbladder. sent5: the almsgiver is polymorphemic if the icaco is not a sociable. sent6: if something does prefigure meteorologist and is not a Horne it does prize Cystophora. sent7: if the fact that either the almsgiver is not a mutant or it is polymorphemic or both is false then it does not prize Cystophora. sent8: if the fact that something is not mutant or it is polymorphemic or both is not correct then it does not prize Cystophora. sent9: if the icaco is unsociable but it is a mutant the almsgiver is not a kind of a unsociable. sent10: that something is a kind of unsociable thing that is mutant hold if it is not polymorphemic. sent11: the almsgiver is polymorphemic. sent12: if the plaice is non-polymorphemic thing that prizes Attica the icaco is not polymorphemic. sent13: something that does not prefigure apogee is not polymorphemic and prizes Attica. sent14: if the icaco is not sociable the fact that the almsgiver is not a kind of a mutant or it is non-polymorphemic or both is not true. sent15: the fisherman does not prefigure indomethacin. sent16: the icaco prefigures meteorologist. sent17: that the icaco does not force cricketer and/or it is temperate is not right. sent18: the comestible is not a telecommunication if the fact that the cricketer is not a telecommunication but it commingles plaice is not true. sent19: the gallbladder does not prefigure meteorologist. sent20: if the fact that the comestible does not prefigure apogee and is a symbol is not right then the plaice does not prefigure apogee. sent21: The meteorologist prefigures icaco. sent22: if the fact that something is either not mutant or not polymorphemic or both is wrong then it does not prize Cystophora. sent23: something is not sociable if it does prefigure meteorologist and it is a kind of a Horne. sent24: if the plaice is not non-mutant and not unsociable then the almsgiver is not a unsociable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not sociable if it does prefigure meteorologist and it is a kind of a Horne.

something is not sociable if it does prefigure meteorologist and it is a kind of a Horne.

if the fact that something is either not mutant or not polymorphemic or both is wrong then it does not prize Cystophora.

the Raffia is thalloid.

sent1: something is not endermic if the fact that the fact that it is both a chitin and a bending is true does not hold. sent2: the tomtit is not thalloid if the Raffia is endermic. sent3: the tomtit is endermic. sent4: if the tomtit is a kind of a Catasetum then the longhorn does not reposition. sent5: if the longhorn is endermic then the tomtit repositions. sent6: if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition. sent7: if something is not endermic then that it is thalloid and it does reposition is not false. sent8: if there exists something such that that it does not commingle postlude and it does prize SSRI is not right then the longhorn is a devising. sent9: everything is a kind of a prostate or it does prize guilder or both. sent10: the ruby is supernatural. sent11: the fact that the tomtit does not commingle postlude and prizes SSRI is not correct if the creel is a detachment. sent12: the ruby does prize guilder if the skidpan prize guilder. sent13: the barbital does not reposition. sent14: the tomtit is aerobic. sent15: if something is not endermic then it does reposition and is thalloid. sent16: if that the longhorn does not devise or it is a paygrade or both is not correct that it is a bending is true. sent17: that either the longhorn is not a devising or it is a kind of a paygrade or both is not true. sent18: if the tomtit is thalloid the Raffia is not endermic. sent19: if the tomtit is endermic the longhorn does not reposition. sent20: if something does commingle SSRI it is a detachment. sent21: if a pituitary thing does prize guilder then the creel commingles SSRI. sent22: if the fact that the skidpan is a kind of a prostate is true then the fact that the ruby prizes guilder is right. sent23: the ruby is not non-pituitary if it is a kind of a supernatural.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Raffia is thalloid.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Raffia is thalloid. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not endermic if the fact that the fact that it is both a chitin and a bending is true does not hold. sent2: the tomtit is not thalloid if the Raffia is endermic. sent3: the tomtit is endermic. sent4: if the tomtit is a kind of a Catasetum then the longhorn does not reposition. sent5: if the longhorn is endermic then the tomtit repositions. sent6: if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition. sent7: if something is not endermic then that it is thalloid and it does reposition is not false. sent8: if there exists something such that that it does not commingle postlude and it does prize SSRI is not right then the longhorn is a devising. sent9: everything is a kind of a prostate or it does prize guilder or both. sent10: the ruby is supernatural. sent11: the fact that the tomtit does not commingle postlude and prizes SSRI is not correct if the creel is a detachment. sent12: the ruby does prize guilder if the skidpan prize guilder. sent13: the barbital does not reposition. sent14: the tomtit is aerobic. sent15: if something is not endermic then it does reposition and is thalloid. sent16: if that the longhorn does not devise or it is a paygrade or both is not correct that it is a bending is true. sent17: that either the longhorn is not a devising or it is a kind of a paygrade or both is not true. sent18: if the tomtit is thalloid the Raffia is not endermic. sent19: if the tomtit is endermic the longhorn does not reposition. sent20: if something does commingle SSRI it is a detachment. sent21: if a pituitary thing does prize guilder then the creel commingles SSRI. sent22: if the fact that the skidpan is a kind of a prostate is true then the fact that the ruby prizes guilder is right. sent23: the ruby is not non-pituitary if it is a kind of a supernatural. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Raffia is thalloid.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the longhorn does reposition.; sent19 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the longhorn does not reposition is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition.

The longhorn does move if the Raffia is thalloid.

if the tomtit is endermic the longhorn does not reposition.

the Raffia is thalloid.

sent1: something is not endermic if the fact that the fact that it is both a chitin and a bending is true does not hold. sent2: the tomtit is not thalloid if the Raffia is endermic. sent3: the tomtit is endermic. sent4: if the tomtit is a kind of a Catasetum then the longhorn does not reposition. sent5: if the longhorn is endermic then the tomtit repositions. sent6: if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition. sent7: if something is not endermic then that it is thalloid and it does reposition is not false. sent8: if there exists something such that that it does not commingle postlude and it does prize SSRI is not right then the longhorn is a devising. sent9: everything is a kind of a prostate or it does prize guilder or both. sent10: the ruby is supernatural. sent11: the fact that the tomtit does not commingle postlude and prizes SSRI is not correct if the creel is a detachment. sent12: the ruby does prize guilder if the skidpan prize guilder. sent13: the barbital does not reposition. sent14: the tomtit is aerobic. sent15: if something is not endermic then it does reposition and is thalloid. sent16: if that the longhorn does not devise or it is a paygrade or both is not correct that it is a bending is true. sent17: that either the longhorn is not a devising or it is a kind of a paygrade or both is not true. sent18: if the tomtit is thalloid the Raffia is not endermic. sent19: if the tomtit is endermic the longhorn does not reposition. sent20: if something does commingle SSRI it is a detachment. sent21: if a pituitary thing does prize guilder then the creel commingles SSRI. sent22: if the fact that the skidpan is a kind of a prostate is true then the fact that the ruby prizes guilder is right. sent23: the ruby is not non-pituitary if it is a kind of a supernatural.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Raffia is thalloid.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Raffia is thalloid. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not endermic if the fact that the fact that it is both a chitin and a bending is true does not hold. sent2: the tomtit is not thalloid if the Raffia is endermic. sent3: the tomtit is endermic. sent4: if the tomtit is a kind of a Catasetum then the longhorn does not reposition. sent5: if the longhorn is endermic then the tomtit repositions. sent6: if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition. sent7: if something is not endermic then that it is thalloid and it does reposition is not false. sent8: if there exists something such that that it does not commingle postlude and it does prize SSRI is not right then the longhorn is a devising. sent9: everything is a kind of a prostate or it does prize guilder or both. sent10: the ruby is supernatural. sent11: the fact that the tomtit does not commingle postlude and prizes SSRI is not correct if the creel is a detachment. sent12: the ruby does prize guilder if the skidpan prize guilder. sent13: the barbital does not reposition. sent14: the tomtit is aerobic. sent15: if something is not endermic then it does reposition and is thalloid. sent16: if that the longhorn does not devise or it is a paygrade or both is not correct that it is a bending is true. sent17: that either the longhorn is not a devising or it is a kind of a paygrade or both is not true. sent18: if the tomtit is thalloid the Raffia is not endermic. sent19: if the tomtit is endermic the longhorn does not reposition. sent20: if something does commingle SSRI it is a detachment. sent21: if a pituitary thing does prize guilder then the creel commingles SSRI. sent22: if the fact that the skidpan is a kind of a prostate is true then the fact that the ruby prizes guilder is right. sent23: the ruby is not non-pituitary if it is a kind of a supernatural. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Raffia is thalloid.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the longhorn does reposition.; sent19 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the longhorn does not reposition is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the Raffia is thalloid then the longhorn does reposition.

The longhorn will move if the Raffia is thalloid.

the tomtit is endermic.

there is something such that it does not burp.

sent1: The PAGAD does not force spastic. sent2: the spastic is not a alkylbenzene. sent3: there exists something such that it is a kind of a hyoscyamine. sent4: that something does not instill and is not a Protestant is not true if it does not prefigure descendants. sent5: the spastic does not force PAGAD. sent6: if that the spastic is not attitudinal is not incorrect it does not burp and it does not prize retrofit. sent7: everything does not prefigure descendants. sent8: if something either does not force PAGAD or is uninfluential or both then the descendants does not force PAGAD. sent9: that something is non-uninfluential thing that does not pretend is not correct if it does not prize Phlebodium. sent10: if the spastic is not a hyoscyamine then it is not disorderly and is not circulatory. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a bioremediation. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-uninfluential thing that does not pretend is incorrect then the spastic is uninfluential. sent13: the spastic does not force PAGAD if it is not a twinjet. sent14: if the spastic does not force PAGAD then it does not burp and it is not a hyoscyamine. sent15: the noseband does not burp and it is not maxillofacial if it is not disreputable. sent16: if that the potpie does not instill and it is not Protestant does not hold then it does not prize Phlebodium.

(Ex): ¬{AA}x

sent1: ¬{AC}{aa} sent2: ¬{BB}{a} sent3: (Ex): {AB}x sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{HH}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{BM}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{G}x sent8: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}{cc} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: ¬{AB}{a} -> (¬{EK}{a} & ¬{AG}{a}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{AP}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}{a} sent13: ¬{AK}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent15: ¬{CK}{bq} -> (¬{AA}{bq} & ¬{DB}{bq}) sent16: ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the descendants does not force PAGAD.

¬{A}{cc}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not burp. ; $context$ = sent1: The PAGAD does not force spastic. sent2: the spastic is not a alkylbenzene. sent3: there exists something such that it is a kind of a hyoscyamine. sent4: that something does not instill and is not a Protestant is not true if it does not prefigure descendants. sent5: the spastic does not force PAGAD. sent6: if that the spastic is not attitudinal is not incorrect it does not burp and it does not prize retrofit. sent7: everything does not prefigure descendants. sent8: if something either does not force PAGAD or is uninfluential or both then the descendants does not force PAGAD. sent9: that something is non-uninfluential thing that does not pretend is not correct if it does not prize Phlebodium. sent10: if the spastic is not a hyoscyamine then it is not disorderly and is not circulatory. sent11: there exists something such that it is not a bioremediation. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-uninfluential thing that does not pretend is incorrect then the spastic is uninfluential. sent13: the spastic does not force PAGAD if it is not a twinjet. sent14: if the spastic does not force PAGAD then it does not burp and it is not a hyoscyamine. sent15: the noseband does not burp and it is not maxillofacial if it is not disreputable. sent16: if that the potpie does not instill and it is not Protestant does not hold then it does not prize Phlebodium. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent5 -> int1: the spastic does not burp and is not a kind of a hyoscyamine.; int1 -> int2: the spastic does not burp.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the spastic does not force PAGAD then it does not burp and it is not a hyoscyamine.

if the spastic does not force PAGAD then it does not burp and it is not a hyoscyamine.

the spastic does not force PAGAD.

the lacer is agreeable.

sent1: if there is something such that that it is an antioxidant and is a kind of a Lophophora is incorrect the lacer is agreeable. sent2: the tonometer unifies if there is something such that it is non-invertible. sent3: the paraldehyde is a Lophophora if the fact that the buddy is indulgent hold. sent4: if that something unifies is not wrong it is indulgent. sent5: the paraldehyde is a kind of a Lophophora if the buddy is a abecedarian. sent6: if something is not a Lophophora then the fact that the lacer is agreeable is right. sent7: something is non-invertible. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a anaspid then that the fact that the paraldehyde is an antioxidant and it is a Lophophora is not false is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the lacer is agreeable and it is a Lophophora does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that it is indulgent the buddy is indulgent and/or it is a abecedarian. sent11: if something is not a anaspid the fact that it is a kind of a tobacconist that is polymeric is not true.

{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the lacer is not agreeable is true.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lacer is agreeable. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that that it is an antioxidant and is a kind of a Lophophora is incorrect the lacer is agreeable. sent2: the tonometer unifies if there is something such that it is non-invertible. sent3: the paraldehyde is a Lophophora if the fact that the buddy is indulgent hold. sent4: if that something unifies is not wrong it is indulgent. sent5: the paraldehyde is a kind of a Lophophora if the buddy is a abecedarian. sent6: if something is not a Lophophora then the fact that the lacer is agreeable is right. sent7: something is non-invertible. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a anaspid then that the fact that the paraldehyde is an antioxidant and it is a Lophophora is not false is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the lacer is agreeable and it is a Lophophora does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that it is indulgent the buddy is indulgent and/or it is a abecedarian. sent11: if something is not a anaspid the fact that it is a kind of a tobacconist that is polymeric is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the paraldehyde is a Lophophora if the fact that the buddy is indulgent hold.

the paraldehyde is a Lophophora if the fact that the buddy is indulgent hold.

the fact that the lacer is agreeable and it is a Lophophora does not hold.

that the heroine is not prime but it is abstemious hold.

sent1: if the brooding does prime then the fact that the heroine is not abstemious and not prime is not correct. sent2: the fact that the brooding is prime thing that does prefigure organza is false. sent3: if the heroine is a kind of a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent4: if that the brooding is abstemious is not incorrect then the fact that the heroine is a buckboard that is abstemious is not true. sent5: the brooding does not prefigure falchion if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a prime and it is dissuasive is incorrect. sent6: if the brooding is not non-prime that the heroine is abstemious a non-prime does not hold. sent7: the brooding is abstemious if it is a prime. sent8: the brooding is a kind of a buckboard. sent9: if the heroine is a buckboard then the fact that the brooding is both a prime and a buckboard is not true. sent10: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is a kind of a iproclozide. sent11: if the brooding is abstemious it is a kind of a prime. sent12: the heroine is a skin-dive if it is a kind of a buckboard. sent13: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent14: if the brooding is abstemious that the heroine is not prime but abstemious is not true.

(¬{D}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{a} & {CT}{a}) sent3: {A}{b} -> {B}{b} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: {D}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: {A}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {GK}{a} sent11: {B}{a} -> {D}{a} sent12: {A}{b} -> {CA}{b} sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent14: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {B}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the balsamroot is a buckboard is right.

{A}{dq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the heroine is not prime but it is abstemious hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the brooding does prime then the fact that the heroine is not abstemious and not prime is not correct. sent2: the fact that the brooding is prime thing that does prefigure organza is false. sent3: if the heroine is a kind of a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent4: if that the brooding is abstemious is not incorrect then the fact that the heroine is a buckboard that is abstemious is not true. sent5: the brooding does not prefigure falchion if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a prime and it is dissuasive is incorrect. sent6: if the brooding is not non-prime that the heroine is abstemious a non-prime does not hold. sent7: the brooding is abstemious if it is a prime. sent8: the brooding is a kind of a buckboard. sent9: if the heroine is a buckboard then the fact that the brooding is both a prime and a buckboard is not true. sent10: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is a kind of a iproclozide. sent11: if the brooding is abstemious it is a kind of a prime. sent12: the heroine is a skin-dive if it is a kind of a buckboard. sent13: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent14: if the brooding is abstemious that the heroine is not prime but abstemious is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the brooding is abstemious.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious.

The brooding is a buckboard.

the brooding is a kind of a buckboard.

that the heroine is not prime but it is abstemious hold.

sent1: if the brooding does prime then the fact that the heroine is not abstemious and not prime is not correct. sent2: the fact that the brooding is prime thing that does prefigure organza is false. sent3: if the heroine is a kind of a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent4: if that the brooding is abstemious is not incorrect then the fact that the heroine is a buckboard that is abstemious is not true. sent5: the brooding does not prefigure falchion if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a prime and it is dissuasive is incorrect. sent6: if the brooding is not non-prime that the heroine is abstemious a non-prime does not hold. sent7: the brooding is abstemious if it is a prime. sent8: the brooding is a kind of a buckboard. sent9: if the heroine is a buckboard then the fact that the brooding is both a prime and a buckboard is not true. sent10: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is a kind of a iproclozide. sent11: if the brooding is abstemious it is a kind of a prime. sent12: the heroine is a skin-dive if it is a kind of a buckboard. sent13: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent14: if the brooding is abstemious that the heroine is not prime but abstemious is not true.

(¬{D}{b} & {B}{b})

sent1: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬({D}{a} & {CT}{a}) sent3: {A}{b} -> {B}{b} sent4: {B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: {D}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent7: {D}{a} -> {B}{a} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: {A}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {GK}{a} sent11: {B}{a} -> {D}{a} sent12: {A}{b} -> {CA}{b} sent13: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent14: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {B}{b})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the balsamroot is a buckboard is right.

{A}{dq}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the heroine is not prime but it is abstemious hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the brooding does prime then the fact that the heroine is not abstemious and not prime is not correct. sent2: the fact that the brooding is prime thing that does prefigure organza is false. sent3: if the heroine is a kind of a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent4: if that the brooding is abstemious is not incorrect then the fact that the heroine is a buckboard that is abstemious is not true. sent5: the brooding does not prefigure falchion if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a prime and it is dissuasive is incorrect. sent6: if the brooding is not non-prime that the heroine is abstemious a non-prime does not hold. sent7: the brooding is abstemious if it is a prime. sent8: the brooding is a kind of a buckboard. sent9: if the heroine is a buckboard then the fact that the brooding is both a prime and a buckboard is not true. sent10: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is a kind of a iproclozide. sent11: if the brooding is abstemious it is a kind of a prime. sent12: the heroine is a skin-dive if it is a kind of a buckboard. sent13: if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious. sent14: if the brooding is abstemious that the heroine is not prime but abstemious is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the brooding is abstemious.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the brooding is a buckboard then it is abstemious.

If the brooding is a buckboard, then it is morally reprehensible.

if the brooding is abstemious that the heroine is not prime but abstemious is not true.

the storksbill is not a hydantoin.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a Confederacy the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin and it is not a kind of a ferrule is not true. sent2: something either regroups or is a hydantoin or both if it is not a kind of a Hejaz. sent3: something does prefigure songwriter and it is a kind of a lowland. sent4: something is a hydantoin if it is a kind of a Confederacy. sent5: something does prefigure Buddhism if it prizes better. sent6: if the metatherian is a kind of non-hydrokinetic thing that is not livable then it does prize better. sent7: if something does prefigure Buddhism the fact that it does not commingle Balaenicipitidae and is not a mush is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the storksbill is a ferrule is correct then the potpie is a kind of a Confederacy. sent9: the admixture is not a kind of a Dutch if something that prefigures songwriter is lowland. sent10: the storksbill is a ferrule. sent11: the storksbill is a Confederacy and a ferrule. sent12: if something is a kind of a Demavend it is unintrusive. sent13: the fact that the metatherian is not hydrokinetic and it is not livable hold if there is something such that it is not a Dutch. sent14: something is not a kind of a Hejaz if that it does not commingle Balaenicipitidae and does not mush is not right. sent15: the homeless does commingle potpie and is a kind of a hydantoin. sent16: if the fact that something is a hydantoin is not wrong then it is a kind of a ferrule. sent17: the fact that the noseband is a Confederacy is not incorrect. sent18: the storksbill is a hexane if it prefigures malfeasance. sent19: the llama is a kind of a Confederacy that is a gratuity.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x v {C}x) sent3: (Ex): ({N}x & {M}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent6: (¬{J}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) -> {I}{b} sent7: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent8: {B}{a} -> {A}{ik} sent9: (x): ({N}x & {M}x) -> ¬{L}{c} sent10: {B}{a} sent11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent12: (x): {AJ}x -> {DC}x sent13: (x): ¬{L}x -> (¬{J}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent15: ({HH}{gn} & {C}{gn}) sent16: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent17: {A}{ip} sent18: {FB}{a} -> {EB}{a} sent19: ({A}{af} & {GI}{af})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the storksbill is not a hydantoin.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the storksbill is not a hydantoin. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a Confederacy the fact that it is a kind of a hydantoin and it is not a kind of a ferrule is not true. sent2: something either regroups or is a hydantoin or both if it is not a kind of a Hejaz. sent3: something does prefigure songwriter and it is a kind of a lowland. sent4: something is a hydantoin if it is a kind of a Confederacy. sent5: something does prefigure Buddhism if it prizes better. sent6: if the metatherian is a kind of non-hydrokinetic thing that is not livable then it does prize better. sent7: if something does prefigure Buddhism the fact that it does not commingle Balaenicipitidae and is not a mush is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the storksbill is a ferrule is correct then the potpie is a kind of a Confederacy. sent9: the admixture is not a kind of a Dutch if something that prefigures songwriter is lowland. sent10: the storksbill is a ferrule. sent11: the storksbill is a Confederacy and a ferrule. sent12: if something is a kind of a Demavend it is unintrusive. sent13: the fact that the metatherian is not hydrokinetic and it is not livable hold if there is something such that it is not a Dutch. sent14: something is not a kind of a Hejaz if that it does not commingle Balaenicipitidae and does not mush is not right. sent15: the homeless does commingle potpie and is a kind of a hydantoin. sent16: if the fact that something is a hydantoin is not wrong then it is a kind of a ferrule. sent17: the fact that the noseband is a Confederacy is not incorrect. sent18: the storksbill is a hexane if it prefigures malfeasance. sent19: the llama is a kind of a Confederacy that is a gratuity. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the storksbill is a Confederacy.; sent4 -> int2: the storksbill is a hydantoin if it is a kind of a Confederacy.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the storksbill is a Confederacy and a ferrule.

the storksbill is a Confederacy and a ferrule.

something is a hydantoin if it is a kind of a Confederacy.

the dimensionalness happens if the creeping happens.

sent1: the fact that the rout occurs is right. sent2: that the moralness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the deep-seaness happens is not wrong. sent4: the prizing Zealander occurs if the sublingualness happens. sent5: that the stalking does not occur is true. sent6: the shockableness does not occur. sent7: the serialness does not occur. sent8: if that the dimensionalness does not occur is correct then the creeps happens. sent9: the begrudging happens.

{B} -> {A}

sent1: {M} sent2: ¬{HA} sent3: {AH} sent4: {CK} -> {BM} sent5: ¬{CL} sent6: ¬{BH} sent7: ¬{JC} sent8: ¬{A} -> {B} sent9: {GF}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dimensionalness happens if the creeping happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the rout occurs is right. sent2: that the moralness occurs does not hold. sent3: that the deep-seaness happens is not wrong. sent4: the prizing Zealander occurs if the sublingualness happens. sent5: that the stalking does not occur is true. sent6: the shockableness does not occur. sent7: the serialness does not occur. sent8: if that the dimensionalness does not occur is correct then the creeps happens. sent9: the begrudging happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is back-channel and it is a Gilgamish.

sent1: there is something such that it is back-channel. sent2: there is something such that it is a Gilgamish. sent3: something is a kind of a barbital. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does commingle whydah and it is a high is right. sent5: there is something such that it forces trimester. sent6: if something is a seer it is a disloyalty. sent7: that the capulin is back-channel is true. sent8: if there is something such that that it is not a Gilgamish and it is a anionic is incorrect then the capulin is inaccurate. sent9: something forces Tarzan but it is not back-channel if it is a disloyalty. sent10: something prefigures wake and it is a zinkenite. sent11: if there is something such that that it does not gyrate and is not a Daviesia is not true then the laureate does not socialize. sent12: the fact that the laureate is not a kind of a Gilgamish and is a anionic is incorrect if it does not socialize. sent13: the capulin is a Gilgamish. sent14: there is something such that it is a zinkenite. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not gyrate and is not a kind of a Daviesia is not correct.

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

sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: (Ex): {AB}x sent4: (Ex): ({DJ}x & {CD}x) sent5: (Ex): {DI}x sent6: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {AD}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> ({HN}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (Ex): ({BF}x & {EE}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{F}{b} sent12: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: {B}{a} sent14: (Ex): {EE}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{J}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the capulin is not accurate and it forces Tarzan.

({AD}{a} & {HN}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is back-channel and it is a Gilgamish. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is back-channel. sent2: there is something such that it is a Gilgamish. sent3: something is a kind of a barbital. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does commingle whydah and it is a high is right. sent5: there is something such that it forces trimester. sent6: if something is a seer it is a disloyalty. sent7: that the capulin is back-channel is true. sent8: if there is something such that that it is not a Gilgamish and it is a anionic is incorrect then the capulin is inaccurate. sent9: something forces Tarzan but it is not back-channel if it is a disloyalty. sent10: something prefigures wake and it is a zinkenite. sent11: if there is something such that that it does not gyrate and is not a Daviesia is not true then the laureate does not socialize. sent12: the fact that the laureate is not a kind of a Gilgamish and is a anionic is incorrect if it does not socialize. sent13: the capulin is a Gilgamish. sent14: there is something such that it is a zinkenite. sent15: there exists something such that that it does not gyrate and is not a kind of a Daviesia is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent13 -> int1: the capulin is a kind of back-channel thing that is a Gilgamish.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the capulin is back-channel is true.

that the capulin is back-channel is true.

the capulin is a Gilgamish.

the fact that the meteorite is both not non-Amharic and not Celtic is false.

sent1: the cornhusk is a sass if the sociolinguist is a sass. sent2: if that the cornhusk is a kind of a sass is right then the fact that that it is not a kind of a downtown and does not commingle raree-show is correct is not correct. sent3: something that is a CT is a Amharic that is not Celtic. sent4: the woad is not autotrophic. sent5: the breadfruit is not a kind of a Amharic. sent6: that something is random but it is not a Signora is false if that it is not a kind of a CT is right. sent7: the sociolinguist does sass if there is something such that that it is both not a sass and not a diestock is incorrect. sent8: if the Land is a Celtic but it is not Amharic then the meteorite is not a kind of a Signora. sent9: if the meteorite is not a kind of a CT but it is hypophyseal the tonsure is not a CT. sent10: if the meteorite is not non-Amharic but it is not a Celtic the Land is not a kind of a Signora. sent11: the quasar is not a half-mast if that the dishwater does prefigure arresting and is a kind of a half-mast does not hold. sent12: that the meteorite is not a CT but it is hypophyseal hold if the Land is not parametric. sent13: the Land is a Signora. sent14: the Land is Celtic. sent15: if the Land is a Signora but not Amharic then the meteorite is not a kind of a Celtic. sent16: the meteorite is a Amharic that is not a Signora. sent17: the Land is not a Amharic if the meteorite is a kind of a Celtic and it is a Signora. sent18: if something is not a half-mast then that it is not a sass and it is not a diestock does not hold. sent19: the fact that the dishwater prefigures arresting and is a half-mast is not correct if something is not autotrophic. sent20: the meteorite is a Amharic.

¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the tonsure is random but not a Signora is wrong.

¬({GA}{hh} & ¬{B}{hh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the meteorite is both not non-Amharic and not Celtic is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the cornhusk is a sass if the sociolinguist is a sass. sent2: if that the cornhusk is a kind of a sass is right then the fact that that it is not a kind of a downtown and does not commingle raree-show is correct is not correct. sent3: something that is a CT is a Amharic that is not Celtic. sent4: the woad is not autotrophic. sent5: the breadfruit is not a kind of a Amharic. sent6: that something is random but it is not a Signora is false if that it is not a kind of a CT is right. sent7: the sociolinguist does sass if there is something such that that it is both not a sass and not a diestock is incorrect. sent8: if the Land is a Celtic but it is not Amharic then the meteorite is not a kind of a Signora. sent9: if the meteorite is not a kind of a CT but it is hypophyseal the tonsure is not a CT. sent10: if the meteorite is not non-Amharic but it is not a Celtic the Land is not a kind of a Signora. sent11: the quasar is not a half-mast if that the dishwater does prefigure arresting and is a kind of a half-mast does not hold. sent12: that the meteorite is not a CT but it is hypophyseal hold if the Land is not parametric. sent13: the Land is a Signora. sent14: the Land is Celtic. sent15: if the Land is a Signora but not Amharic then the meteorite is not a kind of a Celtic. sent16: the meteorite is a Amharic that is not a Signora. sent17: the Land is not a Amharic if the meteorite is a kind of a Celtic and it is a Signora. sent18: if something is not a half-mast then that it is not a sass and it is not a diestock does not hold. sent19: the fact that the dishwater prefigures arresting and is a half-mast is not correct if something is not autotrophic. sent20: the meteorite is a Amharic. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the meteorite is a kind of Amharic thing that is not a kind of a Celtic.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the Land is not a kind of a Signora.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the meteorite is not non-Amharic but it is not a Celtic the Land is not a kind of a Signora.

if the meteorite is not non-Amharic but it is not a Celtic the Land is not a kind of a Signora.

the Land is a Signora.

the fact that the crying is educational is not incorrect.

sent1: the patchcord is a kind of a procyclidine if the curve is a Union. sent2: if the crying does prefigure whitewash then the fact that it is educational and does not prize doggerel is wrong. sent3: the crying is not educational if it does prize doggerel and it is eugenic. sent4: if the patchcord is not eugenic then the crying is a kind of educational thing that does not prefigure Livingston. sent5: if the patchcord does prefigure whitewash then the crying does prefigure whitewash. sent6: the whitewash is educational. sent7: the crying wipes. sent8: the crying prizes doggerel. sent9: the crying is a suborder. sent10: the countinghouse is not eugenic. sent11: the crying does prefigure Livingston. sent12: The doggerel prizes crying. sent13: the crying is a kind of a Ur that is a putrefaction. sent14: a procyclidine prefigures whitewash. sent15: the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic.

{D}{a}

sent1: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent2: {E}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: {E}{b} -> {E}{a} sent6: {D}{ei} sent7: {HU}{a} sent8: {C}{a} sent9: {FT}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{ch} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: ({BI}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent14: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent15: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the crying is educational.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the crying is educational is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the patchcord is a kind of a procyclidine if the curve is a Union. sent2: if the crying does prefigure whitewash then the fact that it is educational and does not prize doggerel is wrong. sent3: the crying is not educational if it does prize doggerel and it is eugenic. sent4: if the patchcord is not eugenic then the crying is a kind of educational thing that does not prefigure Livingston. sent5: if the patchcord does prefigure whitewash then the crying does prefigure whitewash. sent6: the whitewash is educational. sent7: the crying wipes. sent8: the crying prizes doggerel. sent9: the crying is a suborder. sent10: the countinghouse is not eugenic. sent11: the crying does prefigure Livingston. sent12: The doggerel prizes crying. sent13: the crying is a kind of a Ur that is a putrefaction. sent14: a procyclidine prefigures whitewash. sent15: the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the crying is eugenic.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the crying prizes doggerel and it is eugenic.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic.

Livingston is prefigured by crying and is a eugenic MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

the crying prizes doggerel.

the fact that the crying is educational is not incorrect.

sent1: the patchcord is a kind of a procyclidine if the curve is a Union. sent2: if the crying does prefigure whitewash then the fact that it is educational and does not prize doggerel is wrong. sent3: the crying is not educational if it does prize doggerel and it is eugenic. sent4: if the patchcord is not eugenic then the crying is a kind of educational thing that does not prefigure Livingston. sent5: if the patchcord does prefigure whitewash then the crying does prefigure whitewash. sent6: the whitewash is educational. sent7: the crying wipes. sent8: the crying prizes doggerel. sent9: the crying is a suborder. sent10: the countinghouse is not eugenic. sent11: the crying does prefigure Livingston. sent12: The doggerel prizes crying. sent13: the crying is a kind of a Ur that is a putrefaction. sent14: a procyclidine prefigures whitewash. sent15: the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic.

{D}{a}

sent1: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent2: {E}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent5: {E}{b} -> {E}{a} sent6: {D}{ei} sent7: {HU}{a} sent8: {C}{a} sent9: {FT}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{ch} sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: ({BI}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent14: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent15: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the crying is educational.

{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the crying is educational is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the patchcord is a kind of a procyclidine if the curve is a Union. sent2: if the crying does prefigure whitewash then the fact that it is educational and does not prize doggerel is wrong. sent3: the crying is not educational if it does prize doggerel and it is eugenic. sent4: if the patchcord is not eugenic then the crying is a kind of educational thing that does not prefigure Livingston. sent5: if the patchcord does prefigure whitewash then the crying does prefigure whitewash. sent6: the whitewash is educational. sent7: the crying wipes. sent8: the crying prizes doggerel. sent9: the crying is a suborder. sent10: the countinghouse is not eugenic. sent11: the crying does prefigure Livingston. sent12: The doggerel prizes crying. sent13: the crying is a kind of a Ur that is a putrefaction. sent14: a procyclidine prefigures whitewash. sent15: the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> int1: the crying is eugenic.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the crying prizes doggerel and it is eugenic.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the crying does prefigure Livingston and is eugenic.

Livingston is prefigured by the crying and is a eugenic MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

the crying is not educational if it does prize doggerel and it is eugenic.

the boost does not occur.

sent1: the unequalness happens. sent2: the fact that the boost does not occur is correct if the unequalness and the commingling dioxin occurs. sent3: the commingling dioxin does not occur if either the commingling Cuculidae does not occur or the commingling dioxin does not occur or both. sent4: the prizing kerchief does not occur. sent5: the commingling dioxin occurs. sent6: if the commingling dioxin does not occur that the commingling terazosin does not occur and the unequalness occurs hold. sent7: that the commingling dioxin does not occur and the unequalness does not occur prevents that the undynamicness happens. sent8: if the commingling dioxin does not occur then both the unequalness and the boost happens. sent9: the prawning occurs. sent10: the devoting happens and the felt occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: (¬{D} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{II} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{B} -> (¬{AI} & {A}) sent7: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{IC} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent9: {GO} sent10: ({IH} & {GH})

PROVED

PROVED

that the commingling terazosin does not occur hold.

¬{AI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the boost does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the unequalness happens. sent2: the fact that the boost does not occur is correct if the unequalness and the commingling dioxin occurs. sent3: the commingling dioxin does not occur if either the commingling Cuculidae does not occur or the commingling dioxin does not occur or both. sent4: the prizing kerchief does not occur. sent5: the commingling dioxin occurs. sent6: if the commingling dioxin does not occur that the commingling terazosin does not occur and the unequalness occurs hold. sent7: that the commingling dioxin does not occur and the unequalness does not occur prevents that the undynamicness happens. sent8: if the commingling dioxin does not occur then both the unequalness and the boost happens. sent9: the prawning occurs. sent10: the devoting happens and the felt occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the unequalness happens and the commingling dioxin happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unequalness happens.

The disparity happens.

the commingling dioxin occurs.

the boost does not occur.

sent1: the unequalness happens. sent2: the fact that the boost does not occur is correct if the unequalness and the commingling dioxin occurs. sent3: the commingling dioxin does not occur if either the commingling Cuculidae does not occur or the commingling dioxin does not occur or both. sent4: the prizing kerchief does not occur. sent5: the commingling dioxin occurs. sent6: if the commingling dioxin does not occur that the commingling terazosin does not occur and the unequalness occurs hold. sent7: that the commingling dioxin does not occur and the unequalness does not occur prevents that the undynamicness happens. sent8: if the commingling dioxin does not occur then both the unequalness and the boost happens. sent9: the prawning occurs. sent10: the devoting happens and the felt occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: (¬{D} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{II} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{B} -> (¬{AI} & {A}) sent7: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{IC} sent8: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent9: {GO} sent10: ({IH} & {GH})

PROVED

PROVED

that the commingling terazosin does not occur hold.

¬{AI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the boost does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the unequalness happens. sent2: the fact that the boost does not occur is correct if the unequalness and the commingling dioxin occurs. sent3: the commingling dioxin does not occur if either the commingling Cuculidae does not occur or the commingling dioxin does not occur or both. sent4: the prizing kerchief does not occur. sent5: the commingling dioxin occurs. sent6: if the commingling dioxin does not occur that the commingling terazosin does not occur and the unequalness occurs hold. sent7: that the commingling dioxin does not occur and the unequalness does not occur prevents that the undynamicness happens. sent8: if the commingling dioxin does not occur then both the unequalness and the boost happens. sent9: the prawning occurs. sent10: the devoting happens and the felt occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the unequalness happens and the commingling dioxin happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unequalness happens.

It happens.

the fact that the boost does not occur is correct if the unequalness and the commingling dioxin occurs.

the fact that the balk either is vertebrate or does prefigure odium or both does not hold.

sent1: the balk is fiscal. sent2: the balk is not fiscal if the crossbar is not nonvolatile or it prefigures phlebotomus or both. sent3: that that the scribble is not a Mauritanian and it is not a kind of a squat is right is not true if it is an airbus. sent4: the balk is baptismal or does carouse or both. sent5: something does not prefigure phlebotomus if the fact that it is a Zealot and is not nonvolatile is not right. sent6: the balk does prefigure odium if that it is fiscal is not false. sent7: the heretic is either downmarket or fiscal or both. sent8: something is a Hutu if that it is not a kind of a Mauritanian and it is not a kind of a squat is wrong. sent9: the chain-smoker does prize consumer if it is a kind of a vertebrate. sent10: that the balk is a taxpayer is not wrong if it is not non-fiscal. sent11: something that is not a squat is a Hutu and/or a Zealot. sent12: if the scribble is a Hutu the fact that the crossbar is a Zealot but it is not nonvolatile is wrong. sent13: the crossbar is not nonvolatile if the scribble is nonvolatile. sent14: that something is a vertebrate and/or it prefigures odium is not true if it is not fiscal. sent15: the needlework is not a squat if the thriftshop is a kind of non-Mauritanian thing that is an airbus.

¬({C}{a} v {B}{a})

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: (¬{E}{b} v {D}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: {J}{c} -> ¬(¬{I}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent4: ({DF}{a} v {FD}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: ({FE}{ge} v {A}{ge}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> {G}x sent9: {C}{bm} -> {CO}{bm} sent10: {A}{a} -> {DQ}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x v {F}x) sent12: {G}{c} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent13: {E}{c} -> ¬{E}{b} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x v {B}x) sent15: (¬{I}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the charlotte is vertebrate.

{C}{hn}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the balk either is vertebrate or does prefigure odium or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the balk is fiscal. sent2: the balk is not fiscal if the crossbar is not nonvolatile or it prefigures phlebotomus or both. sent3: that that the scribble is not a Mauritanian and it is not a kind of a squat is right is not true if it is an airbus. sent4: the balk is baptismal or does carouse or both. sent5: something does not prefigure phlebotomus if the fact that it is a Zealot and is not nonvolatile is not right. sent6: the balk does prefigure odium if that it is fiscal is not false. sent7: the heretic is either downmarket or fiscal or both. sent8: something is a Hutu if that it is not a kind of a Mauritanian and it is not a kind of a squat is wrong. sent9: the chain-smoker does prize consumer if it is a kind of a vertebrate. sent10: that the balk is a taxpayer is not wrong if it is not non-fiscal. sent11: something that is not a squat is a Hutu and/or a Zealot. sent12: if the scribble is a Hutu the fact that the crossbar is a Zealot but it is not nonvolatile is wrong. sent13: the crossbar is not nonvolatile if the scribble is nonvolatile. sent14: that something is a vertebrate and/or it prefigures odium is not true if it is not fiscal. sent15: the needlework is not a squat if the thriftshop is a kind of non-Mauritanian thing that is an airbus. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent1 -> int1: the balk prefigures odium.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the balk does prefigure odium if that it is fiscal is not false.

the balk does prefigure odium if that it is fiscal is not false.

the balk is fiscal.

that the retraction does not occur and the Monopoly happens is false.

sent1: if the inspectorship does not occur that the retraction does not occur but the Monopoly occurs is not true. sent2: either the commingling saunter happens or the prizing hailstone does not occur or both if the fact that the formulation does not occur hold. sent3: the fact that the parentalness but not the slumping occurs is not true if the steroidalness happens. sent4: if the drizzle does not occur then the inspectorship occurs or the retraction happens or both. sent5: that the drizzle happens hold if the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur. sent6: the cryptobioticness does not occur. sent7: the commingling lupine does not occur if the fact that both the detonating and the bartering happens does not hold. sent8: the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent9: the panting happens but the adscriptness does not occur. sent10: the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent11: if the brachiopod happens the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the prefiguring vagrancy happens. sent13: that the steroidalness does not occur is prevented by that the sericulture happens. sent14: the Monopoly and the inspectorship occurs. sent15: the inspectorship happens. sent16: the retraction is prevented by that the misfeasance and the cryptobioticness occurs. sent17: the fingerlessness does not occur. sent18: if that the parentalness happens but the slumping does not occur does not hold the parentalness does not occur. sent19: that the detonating happens and the bartering occurs is false if the parentalness does not occur. sent20: the inspectorship does not occur if the drizzling occurs. sent21: if the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct then the drizzling does not occur.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the give happens and the gorging happens.

({EE} & {GQ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the retraction does not occur and the Monopoly happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the inspectorship does not occur that the retraction does not occur but the Monopoly occurs is not true. sent2: either the commingling saunter happens or the prizing hailstone does not occur or both if the fact that the formulation does not occur hold. sent3: the fact that the parentalness but not the slumping occurs is not true if the steroidalness happens. sent4: if the drizzle does not occur then the inspectorship occurs or the retraction happens or both. sent5: that the drizzle happens hold if the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur. sent6: the cryptobioticness does not occur. sent7: the commingling lupine does not occur if the fact that both the detonating and the bartering happens does not hold. sent8: the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent9: the panting happens but the adscriptness does not occur. sent10: the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent11: if the brachiopod happens the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the prefiguring vagrancy happens. sent13: that the steroidalness does not occur is prevented by that the sericulture happens. sent14: the Monopoly and the inspectorship occurs. sent15: the inspectorship happens. sent16: the retraction is prevented by that the misfeasance and the cryptobioticness occurs. sent17: the fingerlessness does not occur. sent18: if that the parentalness happens but the slumping does not occur does not hold the parentalness does not occur. sent19: that the detonating happens and the bartering occurs is false if the parentalness does not occur. sent20: the inspectorship does not occur if the drizzling occurs. sent21: if the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct then the drizzling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the retraction does not occur.; sent14 -> int2: that the Monopoly occurs hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs.

If the misfeasance and non-cryptobioticness occur, the retraction won't happen.

the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs.

that the retraction does not occur and the Monopoly happens is false.

sent1: if the inspectorship does not occur that the retraction does not occur but the Monopoly occurs is not true. sent2: either the commingling saunter happens or the prizing hailstone does not occur or both if the fact that the formulation does not occur hold. sent3: the fact that the parentalness but not the slumping occurs is not true if the steroidalness happens. sent4: if the drizzle does not occur then the inspectorship occurs or the retraction happens or both. sent5: that the drizzle happens hold if the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur. sent6: the cryptobioticness does not occur. sent7: the commingling lupine does not occur if the fact that both the detonating and the bartering happens does not hold. sent8: the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent9: the panting happens but the adscriptness does not occur. sent10: the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent11: if the brachiopod happens the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the prefiguring vagrancy happens. sent13: that the steroidalness does not occur is prevented by that the sericulture happens. sent14: the Monopoly and the inspectorship occurs. sent15: the inspectorship happens. sent16: the retraction is prevented by that the misfeasance and the cryptobioticness occurs. sent17: the fingerlessness does not occur. sent18: if that the parentalness happens but the slumping does not occur does not hold the parentalness does not occur. sent19: that the detonating happens and the bartering occurs is false if the parentalness does not occur. sent20: the inspectorship does not occur if the drizzling occurs. sent21: if the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct then the drizzling does not occur.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the give happens and the gorging happens.

({EE} & {GQ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the retraction does not occur and the Monopoly happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the inspectorship does not occur that the retraction does not occur but the Monopoly occurs is not true. sent2: either the commingling saunter happens or the prizing hailstone does not occur or both if the fact that the formulation does not occur hold. sent3: the fact that the parentalness but not the slumping occurs is not true if the steroidalness happens. sent4: if the drizzle does not occur then the inspectorship occurs or the retraction happens or both. sent5: that the drizzle happens hold if the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur. sent6: the cryptobioticness does not occur. sent7: the commingling lupine does not occur if the fact that both the detonating and the bartering happens does not hold. sent8: the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent9: the panting happens but the adscriptness does not occur. sent10: the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs. sent11: if the brachiopod happens the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct. sent12: the prefiguring vagrancy happens. sent13: that the steroidalness does not occur is prevented by that the sericulture happens. sent14: the Monopoly and the inspectorship occurs. sent15: the inspectorship happens. sent16: the retraction is prevented by that the misfeasance and the cryptobioticness occurs. sent17: the fingerlessness does not occur. sent18: if that the parentalness happens but the slumping does not occur does not hold the parentalness does not occur. sent19: that the detonating happens and the bartering occurs is false if the parentalness does not occur. sent20: the inspectorship does not occur if the drizzling occurs. sent21: if the fact that the commingling lupine does not occur and the thoughtfulness does not occur is not correct then the drizzling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the retraction does not occur.; sent14 -> int2: that the Monopoly occurs hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the retraction does not occur if the misfeasance and the non-cryptobioticness occurs.

If the non-cryptobioticness and misfeasance occur, the retraction won't happen.

the Monopoly and the inspectorship occurs.

something spectates and it is photic.

sent1: the porringer is photic. sent2: something spectates. sent3: if something that is not a heckelphone spectates then it is photic. sent4: the porringer is a heckelphone and it does prize canister. sent5: the acinus spectates. sent6: the pseudocarp is not a kind of a heckelphone and does spectate if the porringer does not hammer. sent7: there are photic things. sent8: that the porringer is a heckelphone is not incorrect.

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

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN