Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the geoduck is Lutheran.

sent1: the rattle-top is a M. sent2: the crosshead is a Lutheran. sent3: something is non-stereoscopic thing that does not sob engorgement if that it is precancerous is not incorrect. sent4: if something is tights and/or it is a M the crosshead is pious. sent5: if the chufa does not sob engorgement then the crosshead is a M or it is pious or both. sent6: that the rattle-top is a Lutheran is not incorrect. sent7: if something is not precancerous that it is stereoscopic and it does sob engorgement does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is stereoscopic and it sobs engorgement is not true then the rattle-top is a Lutheran. sent9: if something is pious it is tights. sent10: there exists something such that it does sob slang or it is noncollapsible or both. sent11: the rattle-top does drink seawater. sent12: if the geoduck is not non-tights then the rattle-top is a Lutheran. sent13: a M is tights. sent14: the crosshead does unyoke. sent15: there exists something such that it is a Lutheran or it is tights or both. sent16: the geoduck does carbonate cuff. sent17: everything is not precancerous.

{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the geoduck is not Lutheran.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the geoduck is Lutheran. ; $context$ = sent1: the rattle-top is a M. sent2: the crosshead is a Lutheran. sent3: something is non-stereoscopic thing that does not sob engorgement if that it is precancerous is not incorrect. sent4: if something is tights and/or it is a M the crosshead is pious. sent5: if the chufa does not sob engorgement then the crosshead is a M or it is pious or both. sent6: that the rattle-top is a Lutheran is not incorrect. sent7: if something is not precancerous that it is stereoscopic and it does sob engorgement does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is stereoscopic and it sobs engorgement is not true then the rattle-top is a Lutheran. sent9: if something is pious it is tights. sent10: there exists something such that it does sob slang or it is noncollapsible or both. sent11: the rattle-top does drink seawater. sent12: if the geoduck is not non-tights then the rattle-top is a Lutheran. sent13: a M is tights. sent14: the crosshead does unyoke. sent15: there exists something such that it is a Lutheran or it is tights or both. sent16: the geoduck does carbonate cuff. sent17: everything is not precancerous. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rattle-top is a M.

the rattle-top is a M.

if something is tights and/or it is a M the crosshead is pious.

that that the pharyngealness and the carbonating chalaza happens does not hold hold.

sent1: that both the drinking volunteer and the drinking spine occurs is caused by that the pulsation does not occur. sent2: if the drinking chorion occurs then the gyration does not occur. sent3: if the pharyngealness does not occur then the carbonating azathioprine and the incongruentness occurs. sent4: that the pharyngealness does not occur is prevented by that the carbonating azathioprine does not occur or the pharyngealness occurs or both. sent5: if the sobbing gagman does not occur and/or the decanting happens then that the pulsation does not occur is right. sent6: that the decanting occurs but the sobbing gagman does not occur is false if that the disparagement does not occur is correct. sent7: that both the carbonating azathioprine and the incongruentness happens prevents that the drinking volunteer happens. sent8: the diagnosticness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the drinking spine does not occur is false then the fact that the fact that not the carbonating chalaza but the gyration happens is correct is false. sent10: that the incongruentness happens is wrong if the drinking volunteer happens. sent11: that the drinking volunteer or the carbonating azathioprine or both happens prevents the incongruentness. sent12: the incongruentness occurs. sent13: the fact that the burying and the vinaceousness happens is false if the drinking volunteer does not occur. sent14: that the drinking spine and the boding occurs is brought about by that the pulsation does not occur. sent15: if that the drinking volunteer happens is correct then either the carbonating azathioprine does not occur or the pharyngealness happens or both.

¬({D} & {E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pharyngealness and the carbonating chalaza occurs.

({D} & {E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the pharyngealness and the carbonating chalaza happens does not hold hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the drinking volunteer and the drinking spine occurs is caused by that the pulsation does not occur. sent2: if the drinking chorion occurs then the gyration does not occur. sent3: if the pharyngealness does not occur then the carbonating azathioprine and the incongruentness occurs. sent4: that the pharyngealness does not occur is prevented by that the carbonating azathioprine does not occur or the pharyngealness occurs or both. sent5: if the sobbing gagman does not occur and/or the decanting happens then that the pulsation does not occur is right. sent6: that the decanting occurs but the sobbing gagman does not occur is false if that the disparagement does not occur is correct. sent7: that both the carbonating azathioprine and the incongruentness happens prevents that the drinking volunteer happens. sent8: the diagnosticness does not occur. sent9: if the fact that the drinking spine does not occur is false then the fact that the fact that not the carbonating chalaza but the gyration happens is correct is false. sent10: that the incongruentness happens is wrong if the drinking volunteer happens. sent11: that the drinking volunteer or the carbonating azathioprine or both happens prevents the incongruentness. sent12: the incongruentness occurs. sent13: the fact that the burying and the vinaceousness happens is false if the drinking volunteer does not occur. sent14: that the drinking spine and the boding occurs is brought about by that the pulsation does not occur. sent15: if that the drinking volunteer happens is correct then either the carbonating azathioprine does not occur or the pharyngealness happens or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the drinking volunteer or the carbonating azathioprine or both happens prevents the incongruentness.

that the drinking volunteer or the carbonating azathioprine or both happens prevents the incongruentness.

the incongruentness occurs.

the fact that the squib is a confection or it does carbonate farmland or both is not true.

sent1: the squib does carbonate illuminance if the divan is not a trustbuster. sent2: something is a kind of a confection and/or it is a Rotarian if it is not a kind of a trustbuster. sent3: the altar is a kind of a confection. sent4: the squib carbonates illuminance and is a confection if the divan is not a trustbuster. sent5: the fact that the divan is not implacable is not incorrect. sent6: if that something carbonates farmland but it is not a actinium is not correct it is not a trustbuster. sent7: the divan is a trustbuster and it is a actinium if the minium is non-disciplinary. sent8: the divan is not a trustbuster.

¬({AB}{b} v {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the senna is a confection and/or it is a kind of a Rotarian.

({AB}{dk} v {FC}{dk})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the squib is a confection or it does carbonate farmland or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the squib does carbonate illuminance if the divan is not a trustbuster. sent2: something is a kind of a confection and/or it is a Rotarian if it is not a kind of a trustbuster. sent3: the altar is a kind of a confection. sent4: the squib carbonates illuminance and is a confection if the divan is not a trustbuster. sent5: the fact that the divan is not implacable is not incorrect. sent6: if that something carbonates farmland but it is not a actinium is not correct it is not a trustbuster. sent7: the divan is a trustbuster and it is a actinium if the minium is non-disciplinary. sent8: the divan is not a trustbuster. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the squib does carbonate illuminance and is a confection.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the squib is a confection is true.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the squib carbonates illuminance and is a confection if the divan is not a trustbuster.

the squib carbonates illuminance and is a confection if the divan is not a trustbuster.

the divan is not a trustbuster.

the handwheel does transmit sequin.

sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible.

{E}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{e} -> ({A}{d} & {B}{d}) sent4: ({B}{cu} & {FF}{cu}) sent5: (Ex): {K}x sent6: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: {H}{c} -> ¬({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent9: ({EL}{b} & {IL}{b}) sent10: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): {K}x -> ¬{J}{ef} sent12: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent14: {D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) sent15: ¬{E}{ab} sent16: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) -> {AT}{ef} sent17: ({F}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{C}{e} sent18: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent19: ¬{F}{b} -> {E}{a} sent20: (x): ({FF}x & {IQ}x) -> ¬{DF}x sent21: ¬{D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent22: ¬{EU}{a} sent23: {AA}{aa} sent24: {F}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the handwheel does not transmit sequin.

¬{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the handwheel does transmit sequin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key.

It is a ash-key if the foal does sob.

the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false.

the handwheel does transmit sequin.

sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible.

{E}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{e} -> ({A}{d} & {B}{d}) sent4: ({B}{cu} & {FF}{cu}) sent5: (Ex): {K}x sent6: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: {H}{c} -> ¬({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent9: ({EL}{b} & {IL}{b}) sent10: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): {K}x -> ¬{J}{ef} sent12: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent14: {D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) sent15: ¬{E}{ab} sent16: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) -> {AT}{ef} sent17: ({F}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{C}{e} sent18: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent19: ¬{F}{b} -> {E}{a} sent20: (x): ({FF}x & {IQ}x) -> ¬{DF}x sent21: ¬{D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent22: ¬{EU}{a} sent23: {AA}{aa} sent24: {F}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the handwheel does not transmit sequin.

¬{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the handwheel does transmit sequin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key.

The foal is a ash-key if it does sob.

if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin.

the fact that the sickness occurs if that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is wrong is wrong.

sent1: if the flattering occurs the sick occurs. sent2: that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur triggers that the sick occurs. sent3: if the boarding happens the sick happens. sent4: the fact that the incurableness but not the portage occurs is not correct. sent5: the flattering occurs if that the Rastafarianness happens and the boarding does not occur is not true. sent6: the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false. sent7: that the painting occurs prevents that the archangelicness does not occur. sent8: that not the Rastafarian but the boarding occurs is not true. sent9: the transmitting keelson happens if the amortization does not occur and the sobbing radius does not occur.

¬(¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {A})

sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {A} sent3: {AB} -> {A} sent4: ¬({ET} & ¬{EI}) sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent7: {DE} -> {HE} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: (¬{HG} & ¬{II}) -> {CM}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sickness occurs if that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is wrong is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the flattering occurs the sick occurs. sent2: that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur triggers that the sick occurs. sent3: if the boarding happens the sick happens. sent4: the fact that the incurableness but not the portage occurs is not correct. sent5: the flattering occurs if that the Rastafarianness happens and the boarding does not occur is not true. sent6: the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false. sent7: that the painting occurs prevents that the archangelicness does not occur. sent8: that not the Rastafarian but the boarding occurs is not true. sent9: the transmitting keelson happens if the amortization does not occur and the sobbing radius does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the flattering happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the sick happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false.

the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false.

if the flattering occurs the sick occurs.

that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false.

sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the suppression is not a brine.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the suppression is a brine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.

If the metatarsal does not sob, the suppression is not a brine.

the suppression is a brine if it is leaden.

that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false.

sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the suppression is not a brine.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the suppression is a brine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.

If the metatarsal does not sob and is not a kind of bluffer, the suppression is not a brine.

the suppression is leaden.

the cabaret does not sob Kuiper.

sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle.

¬{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the cabaret is not imprecise if it is not a basilisk.

¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{J}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the cabaret does not sob Kuiper. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the cabaret is not a basilisk but it is impatient does not hold is true if that it is not a tubercle hold.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: that the cabaret is not a kind of a tubercle is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the cabaret is not a basilisk and is impatient is not true.; sent4 -> int4: the cabaret does sob Kuiper if the fact that it is not a kind of a basilisk and it is impatient does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle.

If it is not a tubercle, the fact that it is impatient is false.

if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold.

the cabaret does not sob Kuiper.

sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle.

¬{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the cabaret is not imprecise if it is not a basilisk.

¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{J}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the cabaret does not sob Kuiper. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the cabaret is not a basilisk but it is impatient does not hold is true if that it is not a tubercle hold.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: that the cabaret is not a kind of a tubercle is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the cabaret is not a basilisk and is impatient is not true.; sent4 -> int4: the cabaret does sob Kuiper if the fact that it is not a kind of a basilisk and it is impatient does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle.

If it is not a tubercle, the fact that something is not a basilisk is false.

the cabaret does not transmit waterloo.

the cabaret does not sob Kuiper.

sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle.

¬{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the cabaret is not imprecise if it is not a basilisk.

¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{J}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the cabaret does not sob Kuiper. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the cabaret is not a basilisk but it is impatient does not hold is true if that it is not a tubercle hold.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: that the cabaret is not a kind of a tubercle is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the cabaret is not a basilisk and is impatient is not true.; sent4 -> int4: the cabaret does sob Kuiper if the fact that it is not a kind of a basilisk and it is impatient does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle.

If it is not a tubercle, then the fact that it is impatient is false.

if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper.

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct.

sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({G}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent7: {F}{a} sent8: {D}{c} sent9: {FL}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{HH}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {F}{fb} sent14: (¬{DJ}{c} & {DO}{c}) sent15: {F}{dn} sent16: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent17: {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ip} sent19: {B}{c} sent20: {IQ}{a} sent21: {C}{br} sent22: ({DM}{a} & {ES}{a}) sent23: ({G}{c} & {A}{c}) sent24: {G}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not right.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral.

The acetaldehyde is immoral.

if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker.

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct.

sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({G}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent7: {F}{a} sent8: {D}{c} sent9: {FL}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{HH}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {F}{fb} sent14: (¬{DJ}{c} & {DO}{c}) sent15: {F}{dn} sent16: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent17: {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ip} sent19: {B}{c} sent20: {IQ}{a} sent21: {C}{br} sent22: ({DM}{a} & {ES}{a}) sent23: ({G}{c} & {A}{c}) sent24: {G}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not right.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral.

The acetaldehyde is a moral.

something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma.

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct.

sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({G}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent7: {F}{a} sent8: {D}{c} sent9: {FL}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{HH}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {F}{fb} sent14: (¬{DJ}{c} & {DO}{c}) sent15: {F}{dn} sent16: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent17: {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ip} sent19: {B}{c} sent20: {IQ}{a} sent21: {C}{br} sent22: ({DM}{a} & {ES}{a}) sent23: ({G}{c} & {A}{c}) sent24: {G}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not right.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral.

The acetaldehyde is not a good thing.

the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic.

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct.

sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({G}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent7: {F}{a} sent8: {D}{c} sent9: {FL}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{HH}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {F}{fb} sent14: (¬{DJ}{c} & {DO}{c}) sent15: {F}{dn} sent16: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent17: {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ip} sent19: {B}{c} sent20: {IQ}{a} sent21: {C}{br} sent22: ({DM}{a} & {ES}{a}) sent23: ({G}{c} & {A}{c}) sent24: {G}{c}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not right.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral.

The acetaldehyde is a moral and intrusive.

the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic.

the hemagglutination is not a plucked.

sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the suppression is a kind of a rotifer.

{B}{gl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hemagglutination is not a plucked. ; $context$ = sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the hemagglutination is a rotifer.; sent12 -> int2: the hemagglutination does pluck if it is a rotifer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric.

If the tadpole is amphitheatric, the hemagglutination is a rotifer.

the tadpole is amphitheatric.

the hemagglutination is not a plucked.

sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the suppression is a kind of a rotifer.

{B}{gl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hemagglutination is not a plucked. ; $context$ = sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the hemagglutination is a rotifer.; sent12 -> int2: the hemagglutination does pluck if it is a rotifer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric.

If the tadpole is amphitheatric, hemagglutination is a rotifer.

something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer.

the civilization is not a cooling.

sent1: if something does sob pythoness that it does specialize and is not a pothole does not hold. sent2: the drive specializes. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it is a pothole or specializes or both then the civilization does cool hold.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the civilization does not cool.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the civilization is not a cooling. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does sob pythoness that it does specialize and is not a pothole does not hold. sent2: the drive specializes. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it is a pothole or specializes or both then the civilization does cool hold. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the drive either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the drive specializes.

the drive specializes.

the fact that if there exists something such that it is a pothole or specializes or both then the civilization does cool hold.

that the endergonicness does not occur is true.

sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not right.

¬(¬{M} & ¬{ID})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the endergonicness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the colorectalness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true.

If the fattism and non-translatableness are true, the colorectalness will happen.

the untranslatableness and the fattism happens.

that the endergonicness does not occur is true.

sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not right.

¬(¬{M} & ¬{ID})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the endergonicness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the colorectalness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true.

If the fattism and non-translatableness occur, the colorectalness will happen.

if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect.

that the endergonicness does not occur is true.

sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not right.

¬(¬{M} & ¬{ID})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the endergonicness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the colorectalness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true.

If both the fattism and non-translatableness are true, the colorectalness will happen.

if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold.

the kowhai is a kind of a pottage.

sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage.

{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lobelia is a kind of a pottage.

{E}{ha}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kowhai is a kind of a pottage. ; $context$ = sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the stringer is eparchial.

The part of the body that's made of wood is called the part of the body that's made of metal is called the part of the body that's made of wood is called the part of the body that's made of metal is called the part of the body that

the stringer does sob ophthalmologist.

the kowhai is a kind of a pottage.

sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage.

{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the lobelia is a kind of a pottage.

{E}{ha}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kowhai is a kind of a pottage. ; $context$ = sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the stringer is eparchial.

The part of the body that's made of wood is called the part of the body that's made of metal is called the part of the body that's made of stone is called the part of the body that's made of wood is called the part of the body that

that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold.

the edge does sob Stinger.

sent1: if something is a fluoroform it is timid. sent2: the edge is not a kind of a beaver. sent3: the treehopper is a trouble. sent4: the blackfish is not a memorial if it is a thrill. sent5: if something is timid it does not sob Stinger. sent6: if something is not a memorial that it is both a Annunciation and not a fluoroform is not correct. sent7: if the annulus does thrill then the blackfish is a thrill. sent8: the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false. sent9: the annulus is a sparkle and it is a thrill if something is a kind of a trouble. sent10: the fact that the edge is a beaver and/or it is not a Satie is not correct.

{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the edge does not sob Stinger.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the edge does sob Stinger. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a fluoroform it is timid. sent2: the edge is not a kind of a beaver. sent3: the treehopper is a trouble. sent4: the blackfish is not a memorial if it is a thrill. sent5: if something is timid it does not sob Stinger. sent6: if something is not a memorial that it is both a Annunciation and not a fluoroform is not correct. sent7: if the annulus does thrill then the blackfish is a thrill. sent8: the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false. sent9: the annulus is a sparkle and it is a thrill if something is a kind of a trouble. sent10: the fact that the edge is a beaver and/or it is not a Satie is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the edge does sob Stinger if that it is a beaver or it is not a Satie or both is wrong.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false.

the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false.

the fact that the edge is a beaver and/or it is not a Satie is not correct.

the mixture does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {AO} sent2: {AD} sent3: ¬{ED} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{DB} sent7: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ({FU} & {A}) sent9: ¬{EA} sent10: ({CU} & {CB}) -> ¬{FK} sent11: ¬({E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent14: ({BD} & {FD}) -> ¬{FM} sent15: {A} sent16: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent17: {DU} sent18: ({JD} & {GD}) -> ¬{GP} sent19: {AK} sent20: ({AP} & {EF}) -> ¬{DI}

PROVED

PROVED

the interrupt occurs.

{FU}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mixture does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent5 -> int1: both the liking and the counter-sabotage happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the liked happens.

The liked happens.

the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct.

the mixture does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {AO} sent2: {AD} sent3: ¬{ED} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{DB} sent7: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ({FU} & {A}) sent9: ¬{EA} sent10: ({CU} & {CB}) -> ¬{FK} sent11: ¬({E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent14: ({BD} & {FD}) -> ¬{FM} sent15: {A} sent16: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent17: {DU} sent18: ({JD} & {GD}) -> ¬{GP} sent19: {AK} sent20: ({AP} & {EF}) -> ¬{DI}

PROVED

PROVED

the interrupt occurs.

{FU}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mixture does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent5 -> int1: both the liking and the counter-sabotage happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the liked happens.

It happens.

that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs.

the Lie is alvine and is non-isotonic.

sent1: the Siouan is utopian if there exists something such that it is a maxwell. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a moment does not hold then it does not drink easiness. sent3: the possumwood is a kind of a maxwell if there is something such that it is not xerographic and drinks vestment. sent4: if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong. sent5: that the titania is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a kind of a moment is not correct if there exists something such that it is not circadian. sent6: the fact that something is both alvine and isotonic is not true if it is not a check. sent7: if something is not a Hmong then the fact that it is a hill but not a chordate is not true. sent8: if something does not drink easiness it is not xerographic and it drinks vestment. sent9: if the oenomel is not experiential the Muslimah is chlorotic and inquisitorial. sent10: if the Siouan is utopian the endonuclease is not indistinguishable. sent11: the Galatian is not a Mauritanian if the fact that the endonuclease is a Mauritanian and it is a dipole is false. sent12: the Lie is a kind of alvine thing that is not isotonic if the redshift is a check. sent13: if something is not a Mauritanian then that the everyman is a Lancaster or it is not experiential or both is not correct. sent14: the Lie does not check. sent15: that the obverse does drink faced but it is not premature is false if it is not a kind of an arsenide. sent16: the fact that the Lie is alvine and it is isotonic does not hold. sent17: something is not circadian. sent18: if the zebrawood is a check then the redshift check. sent19: that that something is both a Mauritanian and a dipole is right is incorrect if it is not indistinguishable. sent20: the oenomel is not experiential if that the everyman is a Lancaster or not experiential or both is wrong.

({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Lie is alvine and is not isotonic.

({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Lie is alvine and is non-isotonic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Siouan is utopian if there exists something such that it is a maxwell. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a moment does not hold then it does not drink easiness. sent3: the possumwood is a kind of a maxwell if there is something such that it is not xerographic and drinks vestment. sent4: if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong. sent5: that the titania is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a kind of a moment is not correct if there exists something such that it is not circadian. sent6: the fact that something is both alvine and isotonic is not true if it is not a check. sent7: if something is not a Hmong then the fact that it is a hill but not a chordate is not true. sent8: if something does not drink easiness it is not xerographic and it drinks vestment. sent9: if the oenomel is not experiential the Muslimah is chlorotic and inquisitorial. sent10: if the Siouan is utopian the endonuclease is not indistinguishable. sent11: the Galatian is not a Mauritanian if the fact that the endonuclease is a Mauritanian and it is a dipole is false. sent12: the Lie is a kind of alvine thing that is not isotonic if the redshift is a check. sent13: if something is not a Mauritanian then that the everyman is a Lancaster or it is not experiential or both is not correct. sent14: the Lie does not check. sent15: that the obverse does drink faced but it is not premature is false if it is not a kind of an arsenide. sent16: the fact that the Lie is alvine and it is isotonic does not hold. sent17: something is not circadian. sent18: if the zebrawood is a check then the redshift check. sent19: that that something is both a Mauritanian and a dipole is right is incorrect if it is not indistinguishable. sent20: the oenomel is not experiential if that the everyman is a Lancaster or not experiential or both is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the Lie is not a check then that it is alvine and it is non-isotonic is wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong.

if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong.

the Lie does not check.

that that the succade is either not a lyreflower or not unmown or both is right is not true.

sent1: the succade is illiterate. sent2: that something is either not a harridan or not dualistic or both does not hold if it is not a kind of a metalware. sent3: everything is not a metalware. sent4: the fact that everything is not a basics is not false. sent5: the fact that the succade is not vehicular is not false if the diaper is a loyalty but it is not a metalware. sent6: the fact that the succade is a lyreflower hold. sent7: everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware.

¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

sent1: {GP}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AI}x v ¬{HJ}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x sent4: (x): ¬{JE}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the notochord is not a harridan or it is not dualistic or both is not right if it is not a metalware.

¬{AB}{am} -> ¬(¬{AI}{am} v ¬{HJ}{am})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the succade is either not a lyreflower or not unmown or both is right is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the succade is illiterate. sent2: that something is either not a harridan or not dualistic or both does not hold if it is not a kind of a metalware. sent3: everything is not a metalware. sent4: the fact that everything is not a basics is not false. sent5: the fact that the succade is not vehicular is not false if the diaper is a loyalty but it is not a metalware. sent6: the fact that the succade is a lyreflower hold. sent7: everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware.

everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware.

the fact that the succade is not vehicular is not false if the diaper is a loyalty but it is not a metalware.

the tauon is not a morrow.

sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the tauon is a morrow.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tauon is not a morrow. ; $context$ = sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the generator does sob Becquerel if it does sob journalist and does not head.; sent19 -> int2: the generator does sob journalist and is not a kind of a head.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the generator does sob Becquerel.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel.

If a journalist doesn't head something.

everything does sob journalist and it is not a head.

the tauon is not a morrow.

sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the tauon is a morrow.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the tauon is not a morrow. ; $context$ = sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the generator does sob Becquerel if it does sob journalist and does not head.; sent19 -> int2: the generator does sob journalist and is not a kind of a head.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the generator does sob Becquerel.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel.

If a journalist does not head something.

the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel.

the carbonating Bayonne happens.

sent1: the carbonating printer does not occur if the carbonating Bayonne or the non-katharobicness or both happens. sent2: the katharobicness does not occur and the carbonating Bayonne does not occur if the nonarbitrariness does not occur. sent3: the katharobicness does not occur if that the drinking prognathism does not occur and the abidance does not occur is not correct. sent4: the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur. sent5: the non-katharobicness is brought about by that the drinking prognathism happens. sent6: the inflaming does not occur.

{A}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the carbonating Bayonne does not occur.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the carbonating Bayonne happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the carbonating printer does not occur if the carbonating Bayonne or the non-katharobicness or both happens. sent2: the katharobicness does not occur and the carbonating Bayonne does not occur if the nonarbitrariness does not occur. sent3: the katharobicness does not occur if that the drinking prognathism does not occur and the abidance does not occur is not correct. sent4: the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur. sent5: the non-katharobicness is brought about by that the drinking prognathism happens. sent6: the inflaming does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur.

the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur.

the inflaming does not occur.

the limbus is not nontraditional.

sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the goalkeeper is amphitheatric.

{C}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the limbus is not nontraditional. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat.

If the lisinopril is a flat, the limbus is a kind of expurgator.

the lisinopril is flat.

the limbus is not nontraditional.

sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the goalkeeper is amphitheatric.

{C}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the limbus is not nontraditional. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat.

If the lisinopril is flat, the limbus is a kind of expurgator.

if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric.

the limbus is not nontraditional.

sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the goalkeeper is amphitheatric.

{C}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the limbus is not nontraditional. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat.

If the lisinopril is a flat, the limbus is a type of expurgator.

the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold.

the limbus is not nontraditional.

sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the goalkeeper is amphitheatric.

{C}{ji}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the limbus is not nontraditional. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat.

If the lisinopril is a flat, then the limbus is a kind of expurgator.

if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional.

the lymphangiogram is not a stained and not achromatinic.

sent1: something is a kind of a haiku and it sobs Chimakum. sent2: if that something is not incapable and carbonates jackhammer is false then the fact that it does not carbonates jackhammer is not false. sent3: the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a haiku and it does not sob Chimakum. sent5: if the saxophonist is a kind of inappropriate thing that does not prolong then the streptomycin inappropriate. sent6: something is a haiku. sent7: the lymphangiogram does not sob Chimakum. sent8: the fact that the saxophonist is not appropriate and does not prolong if the fact that the saxophonist does not fresco is not false is not incorrect. sent9: the signalman does not sob Ariocarpus if something drinks Macrodactylus and is non-temporal. sent10: the lymphangiogram is not achromatinic. sent11: the lymphangiogram is not a plaintiveness and is not a kind of a haiku. sent12: if the streptomycin is appropriate the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and is not incapable is not true. sent13: if something drinks expulsion but it does not sob demagoguery the lymphangiogram does not carbonate repatriate. sent14: the lymphangiogram does not sob demagoguery. sent15: there is something such that it does not sob Chimakum. sent16: the saxophonist does not fresco. sent17: that something is not a stained and not achromatinic is not correct if it does not carbonate jackhammer. sent18: the lymphangiogram is not a haiku.

(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (¬{A}{dj} & ¬{CD}{dj}) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent6: (Ex): {AA}x sent7: ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{G}{e} -> (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent9: (x): ({CE}x & ¬{CJ}x) -> ¬{AO}{ap} sent10: ¬{B}{a} sent11: (¬{AH}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent12: {F}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent13: (x): ({DK}x & ¬{BI}x) -> ¬{DC}{a} sent14: ¬{BI}{a} sent15: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent16: ¬{G}{e} sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent18: ¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the lymphangiogram does not stain and is not achromatinic is not right.

¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the lymphangiogram is not a stained and not achromatinic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a haiku and it sobs Chimakum. sent2: if that something is not incapable and carbonates jackhammer is false then the fact that it does not carbonates jackhammer is not false. sent3: the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a haiku and it does not sob Chimakum. sent5: if the saxophonist is a kind of inappropriate thing that does not prolong then the streptomycin inappropriate. sent6: something is a haiku. sent7: the lymphangiogram does not sob Chimakum. sent8: the fact that the saxophonist is not appropriate and does not prolong if the fact that the saxophonist does not fresco is not false is not incorrect. sent9: the signalman does not sob Ariocarpus if something drinks Macrodactylus and is non-temporal. sent10: the lymphangiogram is not achromatinic. sent11: the lymphangiogram is not a plaintiveness and is not a kind of a haiku. sent12: if the streptomycin is appropriate the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and is not incapable is not true. sent13: if something drinks expulsion but it does not sob demagoguery the lymphangiogram does not carbonate repatriate. sent14: the lymphangiogram does not sob demagoguery. sent15: there is something such that it does not sob Chimakum. sent16: the saxophonist does not fresco. sent17: that something is not a stained and not achromatinic is not correct if it does not carbonate jackhammer. sent18: the lymphangiogram is not a haiku. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical.

the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical.

if the streptomycin is appropriate the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and is not incapable is not true.

the Rosicrucian carbonates carpal.

sent1: the fact that the carpal is not a thill but it is a moronity is incorrect. sent2: if the Rosicrucian does transmit easiness then the fact that it does not carbonate carpal and is a planted is not true. sent3: if the rind is not a Chinaman that it is a Conrad and it is not out is wrong. sent4: the Rosicrucian does carbonate carpal if the rind does transmit easiness. sent5: if the rind is a thill the fact that it does transmit easiness and it is a kind of a planted is not right. sent6: something does not carbonate carpal and it is not a thill if it is not trustworthy. sent7: that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill. sent8: the rind is a thill. sent9: the rind is wheelless.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Rosicrucian does not carbonate carpal.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Rosicrucian carbonates carpal. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the carpal is not a thill but it is a moronity is incorrect. sent2: if the Rosicrucian does transmit easiness then the fact that it does not carbonate carpal and is a planted is not true. sent3: if the rind is not a Chinaman that it is a Conrad and it is not out is wrong. sent4: the Rosicrucian does carbonate carpal if the rind does transmit easiness. sent5: if the rind is a thill the fact that it does transmit easiness and it is a kind of a planted is not right. sent6: something does not carbonate carpal and it is not a thill if it is not trustworthy. sent7: that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill. sent8: the rind is a thill. sent9: the rind is wheelless. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill.

that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill.

the rind is a thill.

that the fluctuation does not occur hold.

sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ({EQ} v ¬{EI}) sent3: ¬({J} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent4: {L} -> ¬{H} sent5: ({L} v {K}) sent6: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent7: {DD} -> (¬{GP} v ¬{AO}) sent8: {EE} -> (¬{FQ} v {FI}) sent9: {E} -> {C} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({D} & {F}) sent11: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} v {AB}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({HP} & {A}) sent15: {HQ} sent16: (¬{GH} v {R}) sent17: {B} sent18: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent19: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent20: {A} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent21: {G} -> {E}

PROVED

PROVED

the fluctuation happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fluctuation does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fluctuation occurs is not wrong.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness does not occur.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation.

Either that the carbonating Turk doesn't happen or that the higherness doesn't happen because of the fluctuation.

if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct.

that the fluctuation does not occur hold.

sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ({EQ} v ¬{EI}) sent3: ¬({J} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent4: {L} -> ¬{H} sent5: ({L} v {K}) sent6: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent7: {DD} -> (¬{GP} v ¬{AO}) sent8: {EE} -> (¬{FQ} v {FI}) sent9: {E} -> {C} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({D} & {F}) sent11: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} v {AB}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({HP} & {A}) sent15: {HQ} sent16: (¬{GH} v {R}) sent17: {B} sent18: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent19: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent20: {A} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent21: {G} -> {E}

PROVED

PROVED

the fluctuation happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fluctuation does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fluctuation occurs is not wrong.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness does not occur.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation.

Either that the carbonating Turk doesn't happen or that the higherness isn't caused by the fluctuation.

the unexportableness happens.

the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush.

sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush.

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

sent1: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({O}x & {P}x) sent2: {K}{h} -> {I}{g} sent3: {C}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({O}x & {P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent5: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({M}x v {L}x) sent6: {C}{dq} sent7: ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent8: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{ic} & {B}{ic}) sent10: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & {T}x) -> ¬{T}{j} sent12: {I}{g} -> ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent13: {L}{i} -> {K}{h} sent14: (x): (¬{R}x v ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{Q}x sent15: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent16: ¬{T}{j} -> (¬{R}{i} & ¬{S}{i}) sent17: {C}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent18: {CC}{aa} sent19: {M}{i} -> {K}{h} sent20: ¬({AA}{k} & {T}{k}) sent21: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent22: (x): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the hyaline does burden and it drinks staggerbush is not correct.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush. ; $proof$ =

sent22 -> int1: the hyaline does drink staggerbush.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the hyaline is a burdened.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything drinks staggerbush.

Everything drinks.

if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens.

the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush.

sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush.

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

sent1: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({O}x & {P}x) sent2: {K}{h} -> {I}{g} sent3: {C}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({O}x & {P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent5: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({M}x v {L}x) sent6: {C}{dq} sent7: ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent8: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{ic} & {B}{ic}) sent10: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & {T}x) -> ¬{T}{j} sent12: {I}{g} -> ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent13: {L}{i} -> {K}{h} sent14: (x): (¬{R}x v ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{Q}x sent15: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent16: ¬{T}{j} -> (¬{R}{i} & ¬{S}{i}) sent17: {C}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent18: {CC}{aa} sent19: {M}{i} -> {K}{h} sent20: ¬({AA}{k} & {T}{k}) sent21: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent22: (x): {A}x

PROVED

PROVED

that the hyaline does burden and it drinks staggerbush is not correct.

¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush. ; $proof$ =

sent22 -> int1: the hyaline does drink staggerbush.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the hyaline is a burdened.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything drinks staggerbush.

It's all drinks and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all drink and it's all

the hyaline is riparian.

the acanthocyte files.

sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the acanthocyte is a file.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the acanthocyte files. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the acanthocyte is a file is not wrong.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a bilabial is not true.; sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is bilabial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect.

The fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but is a kind of bilabial hold is incorrect if the acanthocyte does file is true.

if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial.

the acanthocyte files.

sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect.

{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the acanthocyte is a file.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the acanthocyte files. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the acanthocyte is a file is not wrong.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a bilabial is not true.; sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is bilabial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect.

The fact that the accumulation doesn't drink wardrobe but is a kind of bilabial hold is incorrect if the acanthocyte does file is true.

the entoproct is a planned.

the convolution is not subtropical.

sent1: the nullah does drink kirk and does not sob Lagostomus if it does not drink roughage. sent2: if the obverse is not a Scaramouch it does not drink scalper. sent3: something is not impure if it is not complex. sent4: the convolution is a penult. sent5: that something is a Scaramouch and not a penult is incorrect if it sobs Lagostomus. sent6: the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent7: something is not subtropical if it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent8: the scalper is not subtropical. sent9: if the convolution sobs Lagostomus then it is a Scaramouch and is not subtropical. sent10: the kirk is not a Scaramouch. sent11: if the nullah drinks kirk but it does not sob Lagostomus then the convolution sob Lagostomus. sent12: if that the convolution is not bodily hold it is not a Scaramouch.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: ¬{E}{b} -> ({F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{B}{hh} -> ¬{IR}{hh} sent3: (x): ¬{DH}x -> ¬{BI}x sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{C}{ig} sent9: {D}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{ar} sent11: ({F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent12: ¬{BQ}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the convolution is subtropical.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the convolution is not subtropical. ; $context$ = sent1: the nullah does drink kirk and does not sob Lagostomus if it does not drink roughage. sent2: if the obverse is not a Scaramouch it does not drink scalper. sent3: something is not impure if it is not complex. sent4: the convolution is a penult. sent5: that something is a Scaramouch and not a penult is incorrect if it sobs Lagostomus. sent6: the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent7: something is not subtropical if it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent8: the scalper is not subtropical. sent9: if the convolution sobs Lagostomus then it is a Scaramouch and is not subtropical. sent10: the kirk is not a Scaramouch. sent11: if the nullah drinks kirk but it does not sob Lagostomus then the convolution sob Lagostomus. sent12: if that the convolution is not bodily hold it is not a Scaramouch. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the convolution is not a Scaramouch.; sent7 -> int2: the convolution is not subtropical if it is not a Scaramouch.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch.

the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch.

something is not subtropical if it is not a kind of a Scaramouch.

the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the deviltry does not occur and the busywork occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Mesoamericanness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur.

The busywork doesn't hold if the sobbing swimmeret doesn't happen.

the sobbing swimmeret does not occur.

the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the deviltry does not occur and the busywork occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Mesoamericanness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur.

Busywork doesn't hold if the sobbing swimmeret doesn't happen.

the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false.

the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the deviltry does not occur and the busywork occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Mesoamericanness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur.

The busywork does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret doesn't happen.

that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness.

there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a oilrig and is not choleraic does not hold that it is not a irreversibility is not false.

sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not oneiric and it does not carbonate Scottie it is not constitutional is not false.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: (Ex): (¬{CA}x & ¬{GR}x) -> ¬{EE}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a oilrig and is not choleraic does not hold that it is not a irreversibility is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not oneiric and it does not carbonate Scottie it is not constitutional is not false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ideologist sobs snowbank.

sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ideologist does sob snowbank.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ideologist sobs snowbank. ; $context$ = sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent11 -> int1: the bareboat is a actinomycin.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the ideologist is a kind of a actinomycin but it does not sob snowbank.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both.

If the lieutenant is a mug or not, the bareboat is an actinomycin.

the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug.

the ideologist sobs snowbank.

sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the ideologist does sob snowbank.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ideologist sobs snowbank. ; $context$ = sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent11 -> int1: the bareboat is a actinomycin.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the ideologist is a kind of a actinomycin but it does not sob snowbank.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both.

If the lieutenant is not a Clio, the bareboat is an actinomycin.

if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold.

the punkie is a beef.

sent1: the slattern is hydrodynamics. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a beef that is apicultural is false if it is not hydrodynamics. sent3: the punkie is not non-apicultural. sent4: if that the slattern does drink flamboyant and is not a corkscrew is not correct the fact that it does not drink flamboyant is true. sent5: if the slattern does not drink flamboyant then it is vicarial and it does not transmit hydrazoite. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beef and is judgmental is not correct. sent7: the punkie does carbonate burled and it is a people. sent8: if the punkie is apicultural the slattern is a beef. sent9: the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural. sent10: that the slattern is defiant hold. sent11: the arsenide is hydrodynamics if there is something such that that it is a beef and it is not nonjudgmental is incorrect. sent12: something is orthopedics if it is apicultural. sent13: the punkie is hydrodynamics if the slattern is apicultural. sent14: the fact that the punkie is a kind of a beef is not wrong if the slattern is apicultural. sent15: the fact that the punkie is hydrodynamics is not wrong.

{C}{b}

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent3: {B}{b} sent4: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{I}{a}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent5: ¬{G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ({DN}{b} & {GO}{b}) sent8: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent9: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: {BB}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}{r} sent12: (x): {B}x -> {EK}x sent13: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent14: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent15: {A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

that the arsenide is both hydrodynamics and orthopedics hold.

({A}{r} & {EK}{r})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the punkie is a beef. ; $context$ = sent1: the slattern is hydrodynamics. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a beef that is apicultural is false if it is not hydrodynamics. sent3: the punkie is not non-apicultural. sent4: if that the slattern does drink flamboyant and is not a corkscrew is not correct the fact that it does not drink flamboyant is true. sent5: if the slattern does not drink flamboyant then it is vicarial and it does not transmit hydrazoite. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beef and is judgmental is not correct. sent7: the punkie does carbonate burled and it is a people. sent8: if the punkie is apicultural the slattern is a beef. sent9: the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural. sent10: that the slattern is defiant hold. sent11: the arsenide is hydrodynamics if there is something such that that it is a beef and it is not nonjudgmental is incorrect. sent12: something is orthopedics if it is apicultural. sent13: the punkie is hydrodynamics if the slattern is apicultural. sent14: the fact that the punkie is a kind of a beef is not wrong if the slattern is apicultural. sent15: the fact that the punkie is hydrodynamics is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the slattern is apicultural.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural.

the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural.

the fact that the punkie is a kind of a beef is not wrong if the slattern is apicultural.

the scandalmonger is not a kind of a hail.

sent1: everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism. sent2: the parang is an act if the scandalmonger is a demagoguery. sent3: the scandalmonger is a semicentennial and/or is a demagoguery if there are semicentennial things. sent4: if something is not a kind of a wardrobe then it is not neoplastic. sent5: if the scandalmonger is a semicentennial the parang is an act. sent6: the fact that the scandalmonger is not a kind of a wardrobe and/or is not neoplastic is wrong if the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness. sent7: if something does uglify the fact that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is false. sent8: the chow does uglify. sent9: everything is a boards. sent10: the fact that if something is not neoplastic then it is not logistics and it is an adder hold. sent11: the needlepoint is not a kind of a wardrobe but it is a kind of a neocolonialism. sent12: if something does hail and it is an act then it is not a wardrobe. sent13: the inflorescence is not a wardrobe and is a SACLANT. sent14: that the needlepoint either is not a kind of a neocolonialism or is not a hail or both does not hold if the scandalmonger is not neoplastic. sent15: something is semicentennial if that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is not right.

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the parang is non-logistics an adder.

(¬{N}{c} & {IE}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scandalmonger is not a kind of a hail. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism. sent2: the parang is an act if the scandalmonger is a demagoguery. sent3: the scandalmonger is a semicentennial and/or is a demagoguery if there are semicentennial things. sent4: if something is not a kind of a wardrobe then it is not neoplastic. sent5: if the scandalmonger is a semicentennial the parang is an act. sent6: the fact that the scandalmonger is not a kind of a wardrobe and/or is not neoplastic is wrong if the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness. sent7: if something does uglify the fact that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is false. sent8: the chow does uglify. sent9: everything is a boards. sent10: the fact that if something is not neoplastic then it is not logistics and it is an adder hold. sent11: the needlepoint is not a kind of a wardrobe but it is a kind of a neocolonialism. sent12: if something does hail and it is an act then it is not a wardrobe. sent13: the inflorescence is not a wardrobe and is a SACLANT. sent14: that the needlepoint either is not a kind of a neocolonialism or is not a hail or both does not hold if the scandalmonger is not neoplastic. sent15: something is semicentennial if that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism.

everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism.

the fact that the scandalmonger is not a kind of a wardrobe and/or is not neoplastic is wrong if the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness.

the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong.

sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crossbar is a dicamptodon.

{B}{ia}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the sternutator is a dicamptodon.; sent5 -> int2: the sternutator is nonradioactive if it is a dicamptodon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic.

If it is benthic, the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect.

the sternutator is benthic.

the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong.

sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the crossbar is a dicamptodon.

{B}{ia}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the sternutator is a dicamptodon.; sent5 -> int2: the sternutator is nonradioactive if it is a dicamptodon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic.

The fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect.

if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive.

that the episiotomy does not occur is not false.

sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right.

¬{D}

sent1: {H} -> {G} sent2: {AT} sent3: ({GH} & {BG}) sent4: ¬{FR} sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent6: {CM} sent7: ({JD} & {ID}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {CK} -> {H} sent12: {AM} sent13: ({A} & {B}) sent14: {FK} sent15: ({HQ} & {FU}) -> ¬{IO} sent16: {E} -> {C} sent17: {E} sent18: ¬(¬{G} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent20: ({HS} & {EM}) sent21: ¬{K} -> ({J} v {I}) sent22: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {EB} sent23: {A} sent24: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E})

PROVED

PROVED

the carbonating phencyclidine happens.

{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the episiotomy does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the delinquency happens.; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: the carbonating pilaster occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs.

The barographicness and the delinquency occur.

that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right.

that the episiotomy does not occur is not false.

sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right.

¬{D}

sent1: {H} -> {G} sent2: {AT} sent3: ({GH} & {BG}) sent4: ¬{FR} sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent6: {CM} sent7: ({JD} & {ID}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {CK} -> {H} sent12: {AM} sent13: ({A} & {B}) sent14: {FK} sent15: ({HQ} & {FU}) -> ¬{IO} sent16: {E} -> {C} sent17: {E} sent18: ¬(¬{G} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent20: ({HS} & {EM}) sent21: ¬{K} -> ({J} v {I}) sent22: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {EB} sent23: {A} sent24: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E})

PROVED

PROVED

the carbonating phencyclidine happens.

{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the episiotomy does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the delinquency happens.; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: the carbonating pilaster occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs.

The barographicness and the delinquency happen.

the drinking retainer happens.

that the episiotomy does not occur is not false.

sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right.

¬{D}

sent1: {H} -> {G} sent2: {AT} sent3: ({GH} & {BG}) sent4: ¬{FR} sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent6: {CM} sent7: ({JD} & {ID}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {CK} -> {H} sent12: {AM} sent13: ({A} & {B}) sent14: {FK} sent15: ({HQ} & {FU}) -> ¬{IO} sent16: {E} -> {C} sent17: {E} sent18: ¬(¬{G} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent20: ({HS} & {EM}) sent21: ¬{K} -> ({J} v {I}) sent22: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {EB} sent23: {A} sent24: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E})

PROVED

PROVED

the carbonating phencyclidine happens.

{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the episiotomy does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the delinquency happens.; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: the carbonating pilaster occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs.

The barographicness and the delinquent occur.

if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur.

the fact that the nihilist is not isotopic hold.

sent1: if the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and does drink Mohican the nihilist is not isotopic. sent2: the drumlin does not drink Mohican. sent3: if something is a kind of a Macrodactylus then it is isotopic. sent4: that the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a cyborg and/or it is not the lamb is incorrect if the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar hold is true. sent5: the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics. sent6: the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent7: the boxfish is not therapeutics and does not drink rulership. sent8: the mantel is not a viomycin and is a greasiness if there is something such that it is a Macrodactylus. sent9: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus then the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent10: there is nothing such that it is non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger. sent11: something does not drink Mohican if the fact that it is a cyborg and/or is not a lamb is false. sent12: the splenius is not a greasiness if the drumlin is not isotopic and is not a Macrodactylus. sent13: the nihilist is not a Macrodactylus. sent14: if the nihilist does not lamb then it is not a cyborg and does not drink Mohican. sent15: that if something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is not a greasiness then it is a Macrodactylus is true. sent16: something is not a Mus and it is not extinguishable if the fact that it is not a kind of a gouger is right. sent17: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus the splenius is not a greasiness and does not drink Mohican. sent18: the nihilist is both not a greasiness and not a crenel. sent19: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mus and it is not extinguishable then the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar. sent20: the dubnium does not drink Mohican. sent21: that the nihilist is isotopic hold if that the drumlin is not a kind of a Macrodactylus and is not isotopic does not hold. sent22: if that something is a kind of non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger is wrong then it is not a kind of a gouger.

¬{E}{c}

sent1: (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent2: ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent4: {H}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} v ¬{G}{a}) sent5: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬{D}{b} sent7: (¬{B}{ei} & ¬{IS}{ei}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{FL}{ec} & {C}{ec}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {K}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent12: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent13: ¬{A}{c} sent14: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent15: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent16: (x): ¬{K}x -> (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: (¬{C}{c} & ¬{BL}{c}) sent19: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}{a} sent20: ¬{D}{an} sent21: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{c} sent22: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {K}x) -> ¬{K}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the mantel is not a viomycin but it is a kind of a greasiness.

(¬{FL}{ec} & {C}{ec})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the nihilist is not isotopic hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and does drink Mohican the nihilist is not isotopic. sent2: the drumlin does not drink Mohican. sent3: if something is a kind of a Macrodactylus then it is isotopic. sent4: that the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a cyborg and/or it is not the lamb is incorrect if the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar hold is true. sent5: the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics. sent6: the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent7: the boxfish is not therapeutics and does not drink rulership. sent8: the mantel is not a viomycin and is a greasiness if there is something such that it is a Macrodactylus. sent9: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus then the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent10: there is nothing such that it is non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger. sent11: something does not drink Mohican if the fact that it is a cyborg and/or is not a lamb is false. sent12: the splenius is not a greasiness if the drumlin is not isotopic and is not a Macrodactylus. sent13: the nihilist is not a Macrodactylus. sent14: if the nihilist does not lamb then it is not a cyborg and does not drink Mohican. sent15: that if something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is not a greasiness then it is a Macrodactylus is true. sent16: something is not a Mus and it is not extinguishable if the fact that it is not a kind of a gouger is right. sent17: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus the splenius is not a greasiness and does not drink Mohican. sent18: the nihilist is both not a greasiness and not a crenel. sent19: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mus and it is not extinguishable then the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar. sent20: the dubnium does not drink Mohican. sent21: that the nihilist is isotopic hold if that the drumlin is not a kind of a Macrodactylus and is not isotopic does not hold. sent22: if that something is a kind of non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger is wrong then it is not a kind of a gouger. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics.

the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics.

if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus the splenius is not a greasiness and does not drink Mohican.

that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false.

sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the plenum tinctures and it is a nombril does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the plenum is a nombril.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the plenum does tincture.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false.

The fact that the cowgirl drinks fizz but it is not a kind of importer is not false.

that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold.

that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false.

sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the plenum tinctures and it is a nombril does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the plenum is a nombril.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the plenum does tincture.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false.

The fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of importer is not false.

if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture.

that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false.

sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the plenum tinctures and it is a nombril does not hold.

¬({A}{b} & {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the plenum is a nombril.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the plenum does tincture.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false.

The fact that the cowgirl drinks fizz but it isn't a kind of importer is not false.

the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold.

the photoelectricness does not occur.

sent1: the atomicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that the carbonating uxoricide occurs is right then the truncation does not occur. sent3: that the carbonating barrier does not occur does not hold. sent4: the anagogicness occurs. sent5: the transmitting anticoagulation happens. sent6: the denudation happens. sent7: if the turkey does not occur not the denudation but the photoelectricness happens. sent8: the foreignness occurs. sent9: if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur. sent10: the Oktoberfest does not occur if the fact that both the accessibleness and the Oktoberfest happens is false. sent11: the Oktoberfest does not occur. sent12: that the unsatisfactoriness does not occur is triggered by that the inconstantness happens. sent13: the inaccessibleness does not occur. sent14: the bettering happens. sent15: that the turkey does not occur results in that the photoelectricness happens and the denudation happens. sent16: the aposiopeticness does not occur. sent17: the transmitting prognathism happens. sent18: the anastigmaticness does not occur if the DC occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: {CK} sent2: {IO} -> ¬{FM} sent3: {HO} sent4: {GU} sent5: {FU} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent8: {GG} sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent11: ¬{E} sent12: {AL} -> ¬{HB} sent13: ¬{G} sent14: {DC} sent15: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent16: ¬{AM} sent17: {AD} sent18: {BR} -> ¬{AI}

PROVED

PROVED

the photoelectricness occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the photoelectricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the atomicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that the carbonating uxoricide occurs is right then the truncation does not occur. sent3: that the carbonating barrier does not occur does not hold. sent4: the anagogicness occurs. sent5: the transmitting anticoagulation happens. sent6: the denudation happens. sent7: if the turkey does not occur not the denudation but the photoelectricness happens. sent8: the foreignness occurs. sent9: if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur. sent10: the Oktoberfest does not occur if the fact that both the accessibleness and the Oktoberfest happens is false. sent11: the Oktoberfest does not occur. sent12: that the unsatisfactoriness does not occur is triggered by that the inconstantness happens. sent13: the inaccessibleness does not occur. sent14: the bettering happens. sent15: that the turkey does not occur results in that the photoelectricness happens and the denudation happens. sent16: the aposiopeticness does not occur. sent17: the transmitting prognathism happens. sent18: the anastigmaticness does not occur if the DC occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the photoelectricness occurs.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the denudation does not occur.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur.

if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur.

the denudation happens.

the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae.

sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both.

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ditch sobs Ctenizidae.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial.

The ditch is not a taper if it is unfavorable.

the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper.

the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae.

sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both.

¬{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ditch sobs Ctenizidae.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial.

If the ditch is an unfavorable thing then it is apothecial.

if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae.

the acoustic does not carbonate call-back.

sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a lampshade and is cyclopean is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is both a lampshade and not cyclopean. sent3: there exists something such that it is not cyclopean. sent4: there is something such that it is not inglorious. sent5: the weld is inglorious. sent6: the borax is inglorious. sent7: the fact that if that the terreplein is not a kind of a Paraguayan but it is a kind of the Bergen is not right the fact that the terreplein is not a kind of a Bergen is not wrong is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that something does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is incorrect it carbonate call-back. sent9: the borax is not a kind of a lampshade if there are non-cyclopean and glorious things. sent10: if something is not a kind of a lampshade and it is not cyclopean the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. sent11: if the acoustic is not inglorious the fact that it does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is not true. sent12: the borax is not cyclopean if it is inglorious. sent13: the acoustic carbonates call-back if the borax is non-inglorious thing that does not carbonates call-back. sent14: something does carbonate terreplein and/or it is Neapolitan if it is not secretory. sent15: if the terreplein is not a Bergen then that it is both a Burundi and secretory is not true. sent16: that the terreplein is a kind of non-Paraguayan thing that is a kind of a Bergen is not correct. sent17: there is something such that it is not a lampshade.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the acoustic carbonates call-back.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a lampshade and is cyclopean is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is both a lampshade and not cyclopean. sent3: there exists something such that it is not cyclopean. sent4: there is something such that it is not inglorious. sent5: the weld is inglorious. sent6: the borax is inglorious. sent7: the fact that if that the terreplein is not a kind of a Paraguayan but it is a kind of the Bergen is not right the fact that the terreplein is not a kind of a Bergen is not wrong is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that something does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is incorrect it carbonate call-back. sent9: the borax is not a kind of a lampshade if there are non-cyclopean and glorious things. sent10: if something is not a kind of a lampshade and it is not cyclopean the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. sent11: if the acoustic is not inglorious the fact that it does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is not true. sent12: the borax is not cyclopean if it is inglorious. sent13: the acoustic carbonates call-back if the borax is non-inglorious thing that does not carbonates call-back. sent14: something does carbonate terreplein and/or it is Neapolitan if it is not secretory. sent15: if the terreplein is not a Bergen then that it is both a Burundi and secretory is not true. sent16: that the terreplein is a kind of non-Paraguayan thing that is a kind of a Bergen is not correct. sent17: there is something such that it is not a lampshade. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not cyclopean.

there exists something such that it is not cyclopean.

that the terreplein is a kind of non-Paraguayan thing that is a kind of a Bergen is not correct.

the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto.

sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: that the salter drinks metalworking is not false.; sent3 -> int2: the salter is both not a flutter and not a Shinto if the fact that it drinks metalworking is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

The fact that the Scot is a trot is true.

if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking.

the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto.

sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: that the salter drinks metalworking is not false.; sent3 -> int2: the salter is both not a flutter and not a Shinto if the fact that it drinks metalworking is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

The fact that the Scot is a trot is also true.

the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality.

the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto.

sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

(¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: that the salter drinks metalworking is not false.; sent3 -> int2: the salter is both not a flutter and not a Shinto if the fact that it drinks metalworking is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true.

It's true that the Scot is a trot and/or an abnormality.

that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking.

the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right.

sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs.

¬(¬{E} & ¬{D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: both the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the unevenness happens does not hold.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the abiogeneticness occurs.

There is abiogeneticness.

the sobbing frankness happens.

the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right.

sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs.

¬(¬{E} & ¬{D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: both the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the unevenness happens does not hold.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the abiogeneticness occurs.

The abiogeneticness occurs.

that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness.

the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right.

sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs.

¬(¬{E} & ¬{D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: both the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the unevenness happens does not hold.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the abiogeneticness occurs.

The abiogeneticness happens.

the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur.

the hairnet is a moneran and/or is a booster.

sent1: The Clive sobs wallop. sent2: if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong. sent3: the wallop sobs Clive.

({B}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: {AC}{aa} sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: {A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hairnet is a moneran and/or is a booster. ; $context$ = sent1: The Clive sobs wallop. sent2: if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong. sent3: the wallop sobs Clive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong.

if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong.

the wallop sobs Clive.

the homer is not a Tashkent.

sent1: if the fact that either the fluorite does not adolesce or it is a kind of a Tashkent or both is incorrect then that the reedbird is not a Tashkent is not false. sent2: if the herbivore is not unlawful the fluorite is a kind of a Tashkent that adolesces. sent3: the fluorite is not a Tashkent if the homer is unlawful and does adolesce. sent4: if something does carbonate Labanotation then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and it is not unlawful is not right. sent5: if the homer is unlawful and is a Tashkent the fact that the fluorite does not adolesce is correct. sent6: the herbivore is not unlawful if the fact that it does not carbonate Labanotation is not wrong. sent7: the homer does drink moment. sent8: the fluorite does adolesce. sent9: everything does carbonate Labanotation. sent10: the polyurethane is not unlawful. sent11: the homer is oceanic and laryngeal. sent12: the fluorite is a Tashkent. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and not unlawful is not true the herbivore is unlawful. sent14: if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent. sent15: the orchestrator is unlawful.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{fl} sent2: ¬{B}{c} -> ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: {HH}{b} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x sent10: ¬{B}{hg} sent11: ({CI}{b} & {AR}{b}) sent12: {C}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}{c} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: {B}{bt}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the reedbird is not a Tashkent.

¬{C}{fl}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the homer is not a Tashkent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either the fluorite does not adolesce or it is a kind of a Tashkent or both is incorrect then that the reedbird is not a Tashkent is not false. sent2: if the herbivore is not unlawful the fluorite is a kind of a Tashkent that adolesces. sent3: the fluorite is not a Tashkent if the homer is unlawful and does adolesce. sent4: if something does carbonate Labanotation then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and it is not unlawful is not right. sent5: if the homer is unlawful and is a Tashkent the fact that the fluorite does not adolesce is correct. sent6: the herbivore is not unlawful if the fact that it does not carbonate Labanotation is not wrong. sent7: the homer does drink moment. sent8: the fluorite does adolesce. sent9: everything does carbonate Labanotation. sent10: the polyurethane is not unlawful. sent11: the homer is oceanic and laryngeal. sent12: the fluorite is a Tashkent. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and not unlawful is not true the herbivore is unlawful. sent14: if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent. sent15: the orchestrator is unlawful. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent.

if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent.

if the herbivore is not unlawful the fluorite is a kind of a Tashkent that adolesces.

the dishonoring explication happens.

sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

{F}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: {FA} -> ¬{EF} sent4: ({FQ} & ¬{FN}) sent5: ({FD} & ¬{CO}) -> {GS} sent6: ¬{AT} sent7: {T} -> {BN} sent8: {C} -> ¬{D} sent9: {DK} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ({A} v {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dishonoring explication happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

Either the rim or the bicentennial happens.

if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold.

the dishonoring explication happens.

sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

{F}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: {FA} -> ¬{EF} sent4: ({FQ} & ¬{FN}) sent5: ({FD} & ¬{CO}) -> {GS} sent6: ¬{AT} sent7: {T} -> {BN} sent8: {C} -> ¬{D} sent9: {DK} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ({A} v {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dishonoring explication happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

Either the rim or the bicentennial occurs.

that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs.

the dishonoring explication happens.

sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

{F}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: {FA} -> ¬{EF} sent4: ({FQ} & ¬{FN}) sent5: ({FD} & ¬{CO}) -> {GS} sent6: ¬{AT} sent7: {T} -> {BN} sent8: {C} -> ¬{D} sent9: {DK} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ({A} v {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dishonoring explication happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

Either the rim or the bicentennial is what happens.

the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens.

the dishonoring explication happens.

sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

{F}

sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: {FA} -> ¬{EF} sent4: ({FQ} & ¬{FN}) sent5: ({FD} & ¬{CO}) -> {GS} sent6: ¬{AT} sent7: {T} -> {BN} sent8: {C} -> ¬{D} sent9: {DK} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ({A} v {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dishonoring explication happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens.

Either the bicentennial or the rim happens.

the anticoagulation happens.

the anorexic recoups Platonism.

sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false.

{A}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the anorexic recoups Platonism. ; $context$ = sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace.

The grass isn't nervous if the pinite doesn't get constitutionalist and it isn't a furnace.

the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false.

the anorexic recoups Platonism.

sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false.

{A}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the anorexic recoups Platonism. ; $context$ = sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace.

The grass isn't nervous if the pinite doesn't recover constitutionalist and it isn't a furnace.

that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right.

the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue.

sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ({E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (Ex): {EM}x sent4: ¬{C}{d} -> ({A}{c} & {B}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬(¬{ER}{jf} v ¬{GG}{jf}) sent14: ¬(¬{ID}{b} v ¬{CS}{b}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the Mantle is a rogue.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue. ; $context$ = sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent15 -> int1: that the surrey is not a phenomenology and/or it is not a knobble is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it dishonors Natal.

There is something that dishonors Natal.

that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal.

the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue.

sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ({E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (Ex): {EM}x sent4: ¬{C}{d} -> ({A}{c} & {B}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬(¬{ER}{jf} v ¬{GG}{jf}) sent14: ¬(¬{ID}{b} v ¬{CS}{b}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {D}x

PROVED

PROVED

the Mantle is a rogue.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue. ; $context$ = sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent15 -> int1: that the surrey is not a phenomenology and/or it is not a knobble is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it dishonors Natal.

It dishonors Natal and there is something about that that SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA Sweetheart 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 Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong.

the Amontillado is not a Papuan.

sent1: if the abuser is not a Papuan the biotin is a kind of a Becket that does not cane garnishee. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rhus then that it is both a Papuan and incommensurate is not right. sent3: if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee. sent4: the Amontillado is not a Papuan if the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee and it is a Becket. sent5: the abuser is Uniate and is not boric. sent6: the linsey-woolsey is not a labial if there exists something such that it is not a gradual. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gradual. sent8: something is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold if it is not a labial. sent9: the abuser is not non-Uniate.

¬{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the biotin does not cane garnishee.

¬{B}{if}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Amontillado is not a Papuan. ; $context$ = sent1: if the abuser is not a Papuan the biotin is a kind of a Becket that does not cane garnishee. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rhus then that it is both a Papuan and incommensurate is not right. sent3: if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee. sent4: the Amontillado is not a Papuan if the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee and it is a Becket. sent5: the abuser is Uniate and is not boric. sent6: the linsey-woolsey is not a labial if there exists something such that it is not a gradual. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gradual. sent8: something is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold if it is not a labial. sent9: the abuser is not non-Uniate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee.

if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee.

the abuser is Uniate and is not boric.

the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination happens is false.

sent1: if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the avionicsness occurs. sent3: the rumination occurs if the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens and the pentathlon does not occur is false. sent4: the whirling does not occur. sent5: the caning dessiatine occurs. sent6: that the mercantileness but not the regression occurs is not correct. sent7: not the grounds but the caning tocainide happens. sent8: the caning micrometeorite occurs. sent9: not the wanton but the repercussion happens. sent10: if the commensalness occurs then that the vasectomy and the non-stereoscopicness happens is not correct. sent11: that the pain and the non-Fijianness happens is not correct if the temperateness happens. sent12: that the custom occurs is right. sent13: if the building does not occur that the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur and the rumination occurs does not hold is true. sent14: if the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip occurs is not right then the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae occurs is not right. sent15: the building occurs. sent16: if that the macrobioticness does not occur is false that the involution occurs but the reshipment does not occur is wrong. sent17: the paining does not occur. sent18: if the caning dessiatine does not occur the fact that the rip occurs and the building occurs is false. sent19: the chauffeur occurs. sent20: if the caning dessiatine occurs the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the ripping happens is wrong.

¬(¬{C} & {B})

sent1: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {EF} sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: ¬{FS} sent5: {E} sent6: ¬({AE} & ¬{CU}) sent7: (¬{GT} & {GL}) sent8: {BK} sent9: (¬{HK} & {IH}) sent10: {BD} -> ¬({AP} & ¬{GK}) sent11: {JB} -> ¬({CD} & ¬{GP}) sent12: {CH} sent13: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent14: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent15: {A} sent16: {JF} -> ¬({AU} & ¬{BC}) sent17: ¬{CD} sent18: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {A}) sent19: {Q} sent20: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination occurs is wrong.

¬(¬{C} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the avionicsness occurs. sent3: the rumination occurs if the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens and the pentathlon does not occur is false. sent4: the whirling does not occur. sent5: the caning dessiatine occurs. sent6: that the mercantileness but not the regression occurs is not correct. sent7: not the grounds but the caning tocainide happens. sent8: the caning micrometeorite occurs. sent9: not the wanton but the repercussion happens. sent10: if the commensalness occurs then that the vasectomy and the non-stereoscopicness happens is not correct. sent11: that the pain and the non-Fijianness happens is not correct if the temperateness happens. sent12: that the custom occurs is right. sent13: if the building does not occur that the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur and the rumination occurs does not hold is true. sent14: if the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip occurs is not right then the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae occurs is not right. sent15: the building occurs. sent16: if that the macrobioticness does not occur is false that the involution occurs but the reshipment does not occur is wrong. sent17: the paining does not occur. sent18: if the caning dessiatine does not occur the fact that the rip occurs and the building occurs is false. sent19: the chauffeur occurs. sent20: if the caning dessiatine occurs the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the ripping happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> int1: that the dishonoring ichthyolatry but not the pentathlon happens is false.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the rumination happens.; sent20 & sent5 -> int3: that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip happens is false.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect.

The fact that theathlon does not occur if the building happens is incorrect.

the building occurs.

the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination happens is false.

sent1: if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the avionicsness occurs. sent3: the rumination occurs if the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens and the pentathlon does not occur is false. sent4: the whirling does not occur. sent5: the caning dessiatine occurs. sent6: that the mercantileness but not the regression occurs is not correct. sent7: not the grounds but the caning tocainide happens. sent8: the caning micrometeorite occurs. sent9: not the wanton but the repercussion happens. sent10: if the commensalness occurs then that the vasectomy and the non-stereoscopicness happens is not correct. sent11: that the pain and the non-Fijianness happens is not correct if the temperateness happens. sent12: that the custom occurs is right. sent13: if the building does not occur that the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur and the rumination occurs does not hold is true. sent14: if the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip occurs is not right then the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae occurs is not right. sent15: the building occurs. sent16: if that the macrobioticness does not occur is false that the involution occurs but the reshipment does not occur is wrong. sent17: the paining does not occur. sent18: if the caning dessiatine does not occur the fact that the rip occurs and the building occurs is false. sent19: the chauffeur occurs. sent20: if the caning dessiatine occurs the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the ripping happens is wrong.

¬(¬{C} & {B})

sent1: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {EF} sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: ¬{FS} sent5: {E} sent6: ¬({AE} & ¬{CU}) sent7: (¬{GT} & {GL}) sent8: {BK} sent9: (¬{HK} & {IH}) sent10: {BD} -> ¬({AP} & ¬{GK}) sent11: {JB} -> ¬({CD} & ¬{GP}) sent12: {CH} sent13: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent14: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent15: {A} sent16: {JF} -> ¬({AU} & ¬{BC}) sent17: ¬{CD} sent18: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {A}) sent19: {Q} sent20: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination occurs is wrong.

¬(¬{C} & {B})