Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the cambium is a kind of a canecutter.

sent1: that the cambium is not a faint or it is not a canecutter or both is true. sent2: something is phrasal if it is an endive. sent3: the fact that the Paiute is not a dewlap and is nuclear is false if it does not lionize imbroglio. sent4: if something is not a faint and not nuclear it is a fitter. sent5: the cambium either is not a canecutter or is not a faint or both. sent6: if the stepmother is not a kind of a canecutter then that the cambium does faint is right. sent7: the cambium is a kind of a fitter if the stepmother is not a canecutter. sent8: the shrink-wrap is a fitter. sent9: the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint. sent10: the Paiute does not lionize imbroglio. sent11: something is not a kind of a fitter if the fact that it is not a kind of a Mogul and is a fitter is not true. sent12: the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both. sent13: if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear. sent14: the cambium is non-fitter and/or is not a kind of a canecutter. sent15: either the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it is not nuclear or both. sent16: the cambium grapples gross. sent17: something that guggles genuineness is large-capitalization. sent18: the cambium is not fitter and/or it is not nuclear. sent19: if something is altitudinal it is a kind of a granulocyte. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is both not a dewlap and nuclear is incorrect the makeup is not nuclear. sent21: something is a kind of a canecutter if it is a kind of a fitter. sent22: the spleenwort is a canecutter. sent23: the cambium is not a kind of a canecutter if the stepmother is a canecutter and is not a faint.

{D}{c}

sent1: (¬{B}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent2: (x): {CF}x -> {JE}x sent3: ¬{F}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & {C}{e}) sent4: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent5: (¬{D}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent6: ¬{D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent7: ¬{D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent8: {A}{cr} sent9: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: ¬{F}{e} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent14: (¬{A}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent15: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent16: {AJ}{c} sent17: (x): {FS}x -> {DP}x sent18: (¬{A}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent19: (x): {IL}x -> {GM}x sent20: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{d} sent21: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent22: {D}{dl} sent23: ({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cambium is not a canecutter.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cambium is a kind of a canecutter. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cambium is not a faint or it is not a canecutter or both is true. sent2: something is phrasal if it is an endive. sent3: the fact that the Paiute is not a dewlap and is nuclear is false if it does not lionize imbroglio. sent4: if something is not a faint and not nuclear it is a fitter. sent5: the cambium either is not a canecutter or is not a faint or both. sent6: if the stepmother is not a kind of a canecutter then that the cambium does faint is right. sent7: the cambium is a kind of a fitter if the stepmother is not a canecutter. sent8: the shrink-wrap is a fitter. sent9: the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint. sent10: the Paiute does not lionize imbroglio. sent11: something is not a kind of a fitter if the fact that it is not a kind of a Mogul and is a fitter is not true. sent12: the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both. sent13: if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear. sent14: the cambium is non-fitter and/or is not a kind of a canecutter. sent15: either the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it is not nuclear or both. sent16: the cambium grapples gross. sent17: something that guggles genuineness is large-capitalization. sent18: the cambium is not fitter and/or it is not nuclear. sent19: if something is altitudinal it is a kind of a granulocyte. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is both not a dewlap and nuclear is incorrect the makeup is not nuclear. sent21: something is a kind of a canecutter if it is a kind of a fitter. sent22: the spleenwort is a canecutter. sent23: the cambium is not a kind of a canecutter if the stepmother is a canecutter and is not a faint. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both.

The stepmother is not a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example.

the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint.

the prokaryote is a lithosphere.

sent1: the prokaryote is a borderland. sent2: something does not lionize woodcarver but it is a perfectibility. sent3: if there exists something such that it does lionize woodcarver and it is a perfectibility then the prokaryote is a kind of a lithosphere. sent4: the prokaryote lionizes woodcarver. sent5: if something that is not a perfectibility does brew the prokaryote is theosophical. sent6: the fact that the prokaryote is a Timorese is right. sent7: there is something such that it is both not nocturnal and a quaver. sent8: if that that something does not grapple nativism and is not an imperial is right does not hold then it is a kind of an imperial. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Meliphagidae and is a huff. sent10: there exists something such that it does not lionize woodcarver. sent11: the stile is not upland if the overload grapples overload but it is upland. sent12: the bovine is both a felo-de-se and not an inscription if the cordovan is an imperial. sent13: that the stile is not a kind of a brown but it is exuvial does not hold if it is not upland. sent14: the overload grapples overload but it is not upland. sent15: the fact that the prokaryote is a kind of a lithosphere is not incorrect if there exists something such that it does not lionize woodcarver and is a perfectibility. sent16: the prokaryote is a kind of a Levantine if there is something such that it is not a Argos and is a bioterrorism. sent17: if that something is not a brown but it is exuvial does not hold then it does brown. sent18: something is not a magnetization and is one-piece.

{A}{a}

sent1: {GG}{a} sent2: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: {AA}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{AB}x & {HT}x) -> {EO}{a} sent6: {FH}{a} sent7: (Ex): (¬{BH}x & {CE}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{DF}x & {IE}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent11: ({I}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent12: {D}{c} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent13: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent14: ({I}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent15: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent16: (x): (¬{JK}x & {HA}x) -> {EG}{a} sent17: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> {F}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{Q}x & {FC}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the prokaryote is not a kind of a lithosphere.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the prokaryote is a lithosphere. ; $context$ = sent1: the prokaryote is a borderland. sent2: something does not lionize woodcarver but it is a perfectibility. sent3: if there exists something such that it does lionize woodcarver and it is a perfectibility then the prokaryote is a kind of a lithosphere. sent4: the prokaryote lionizes woodcarver. sent5: if something that is not a perfectibility does brew the prokaryote is theosophical. sent6: the fact that the prokaryote is a Timorese is right. sent7: there is something such that it is both not nocturnal and a quaver. sent8: if that that something does not grapple nativism and is not an imperial is right does not hold then it is a kind of an imperial. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Meliphagidae and is a huff. sent10: there exists something such that it does not lionize woodcarver. sent11: the stile is not upland if the overload grapples overload but it is upland. sent12: the bovine is both a felo-de-se and not an inscription if the cordovan is an imperial. sent13: that the stile is not a kind of a brown but it is exuvial does not hold if it is not upland. sent14: the overload grapples overload but it is not upland. sent15: the fact that the prokaryote is a kind of a lithosphere is not incorrect if there exists something such that it does not lionize woodcarver and is a perfectibility. sent16: the prokaryote is a kind of a Levantine if there is something such that it is not a Argos and is a bioterrorism. sent17: if that something is not a brown but it is exuvial does not hold then it does brown. sent18: something is not a magnetization and is one-piece. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not lionize woodcarver but it is a perfectibility.

something does not lionize woodcarver but it is a perfectibility.

the fact that the prokaryote is a kind of a lithosphere is not incorrect if there exists something such that it does not lionize woodcarver and is a perfectibility.

there is something such that it does avow stepfather and does not soak.

sent1: there is something such that it guggles Californian. sent2: something avows stepfather. sent3: everything is dioecious a Kennewick.

(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): {DA}x sent2: (Ex): {AA}x sent3: (x): ({C}x & {D}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

everything is a kind of biogenic thing that is not a skinny.

(x): ({EL}x & ¬{GU}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does avow stepfather and does not soak. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it guggles Californian. sent2: something avows stepfather. sent3: everything is dioecious a Kennewick. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something avows stepfather.

something avows stepfather.

there is something such that it guggles Californian.

the skeletalness does not occur.

sent1: that the Aleutianness occurs is not right if both the no-goness and the induction happens. sent2: that the headstand does not occur is brought about by that the grappling trade-last happens and the basket occurs. sent3: the referral occurs. sent4: the musculoskeletalness happens and the volley occurs. sent5: that the referral does not occur brings about that the entomologicalness occurs and the skeletalness occurs. sent6: the crustalness does not occur. sent7: that the abdication and the avowing MSG happens brings about that the countercoup does not occur. sent8: the runoff and the TPN occurs. sent9: both the grappling mariner and the meatlessness happens. sent10: the avowing flashlight does not occur if the calmness and the tribute occurs. sent11: the conservation happens. sent12: both the Scrabble and the extragalacticness occurs. sent13: that the particularisticness and the disestablishment occurs brings about that the responsibleness does not occur. sent14: the circular occurs. sent15: the grappling fine occurs and the psychometricness happens. sent16: the homering does not occur. sent17: the entomologicalness occurs. sent18: the cooperation happens. sent19: the Phoenician occurs. sent20: if both the incandescence and the polarization happens the induction does not occur. sent21: that both the carousing and the spatter occurs yields that the transcription does not occur. sent22: the gluttony and the architecturalness happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ({DI} & {IH}) -> ¬{G} sent2: ({EL} & {IK}) -> ¬{HG} sent3: {B} sent4: ({BT} & {GJ}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent6: ¬{HM} sent7: ({FD} & {HQ}) -> ¬{IE} sent8: ({CQ} & {S}) sent9: ({BI} & {CE}) sent10: ({DD} & {DC}) -> ¬{DU} sent11: {P} sent12: ({IG} & {EA}) sent13: ({FQ} & {JA}) -> ¬{FM} sent14: {AG} sent15: ({EM} & {IT}) sent16: ¬{AF} sent17: {A} sent18: {AP} sent19: {CU} sent20: ({M} & {DQ}) -> ¬{IH} sent21: ({AI} & {GT}) -> ¬{BG} sent22: ({CH} & {DS})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the skeletalness occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the skeletalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Aleutianness occurs is not right if both the no-goness and the induction happens. sent2: that the headstand does not occur is brought about by that the grappling trade-last happens and the basket occurs. sent3: the referral occurs. sent4: the musculoskeletalness happens and the volley occurs. sent5: that the referral does not occur brings about that the entomologicalness occurs and the skeletalness occurs. sent6: the crustalness does not occur. sent7: that the abdication and the avowing MSG happens brings about that the countercoup does not occur. sent8: the runoff and the TPN occurs. sent9: both the grappling mariner and the meatlessness happens. sent10: the avowing flashlight does not occur if the calmness and the tribute occurs. sent11: the conservation happens. sent12: both the Scrabble and the extragalacticness occurs. sent13: that the particularisticness and the disestablishment occurs brings about that the responsibleness does not occur. sent14: the circular occurs. sent15: the grappling fine occurs and the psychometricness happens. sent16: the homering does not occur. sent17: the entomologicalness occurs. sent18: the cooperation happens. sent19: the Phoenician occurs. sent20: if both the incandescence and the polarization happens the induction does not occur. sent21: that both the carousing and the spatter occurs yields that the transcription does not occur. sent22: the gluttony and the architecturalness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the entomologicalness occurs.

the entomologicalness occurs.

the referral occurs.

the unguiculateness does not occur.

sent1: the grappling beta-adrenoceptor and the distempering happens if the uncovering does not occur. sent2: the example and the prelim occurs. sent3: the unguiculateness occurs if the example happens. sent4: the wanting occurs. sent5: the prelim happens. sent6: that the prodromalness does not occur leads to that the uncovering does not occur. sent7: the prelim does not occur or the example does not occur or both if the distemper occurs. sent8: that the prelim does not occur and/or the example does not occur results in the non-unguiculateness.

¬{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the unguiculate does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the unguiculateness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the grappling beta-adrenoceptor and the distempering happens if the uncovering does not occur. sent2: the example and the prelim occurs. sent3: the unguiculateness occurs if the example happens. sent4: the wanting occurs. sent5: the prelim happens. sent6: that the prodromalness does not occur leads to that the uncovering does not occur. sent7: the prelim does not occur or the example does not occur or both if the distemper occurs. sent8: that the prelim does not occur and/or the example does not occur results in the non-unguiculateness. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the example occurs.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the example and the prelim occurs.

the example and the prelim occurs.

the unguiculateness occurs if the example happens.

both the structuralness and the detailing occurs.

sent1: the zymoticness occurs. sent2: the fact that the yearning happens is true. sent3: the split and the catabolizing happens. sent4: that the prospecting happens hold. sent5: the marketing happens. sent6: the forcefulness happens. sent7: if the holozoicness happens then the acquiring happens. sent8: the retailing and the guggling Sericocarpus occurs. sent9: the checkmating and the waggery happens. sent10: if the fact that that the uncompassionateness but not the payback occurs does not hold hold then the fact that the avowing Alecto does not occur is not false. sent11: if the forcefulness occurs the detailing happens. sent12: if the reelection occurs that the uncompassionateness occurs but the payback does not occur does not hold. sent13: the humbling happens. sent14: the avowing actuality and the countersuit happens. sent15: the catabolizing happens. sent16: the stupefaction happens. sent17: the acquiring occurs. sent18: the fact that the consumerism occurs and the forcefulness happens is not correct if the avowing Alecto does not occur. sent19: if the attentionalness does not occur the fact that the structuralness occurs and the details happens does not hold.

({A} & {C})

sent1: {HD} sent2: {GH} sent3: ({HO} & {GI}) sent4: {IC} sent5: {DN} sent6: {D} sent7: {CJ} -> {IT} sent8: ({CQ} & {BD}) sent9: ({IG} & {JG}) sent10: ¬({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent11: {D} -> {C} sent12: {I} -> ¬({H} & ¬{G}) sent13: {CP} sent14: ({DL} & {GM}) sent15: {GI} sent16: {FP} sent17: {IT} sent18: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent19: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the structuralness occurs and the details occurs is not true.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the structuralness and the detailing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the zymoticness occurs. sent2: the fact that the yearning happens is true. sent3: the split and the catabolizing happens. sent4: that the prospecting happens hold. sent5: the marketing happens. sent6: the forcefulness happens. sent7: if the holozoicness happens then the acquiring happens. sent8: the retailing and the guggling Sericocarpus occurs. sent9: the checkmating and the waggery happens. sent10: if the fact that that the uncompassionateness but not the payback occurs does not hold hold then the fact that the avowing Alecto does not occur is not false. sent11: if the forcefulness occurs the detailing happens. sent12: if the reelection occurs that the uncompassionateness occurs but the payback does not occur does not hold. sent13: the humbling happens. sent14: the avowing actuality and the countersuit happens. sent15: the catabolizing happens. sent16: the stupefaction happens. sent17: the acquiring occurs. sent18: the fact that the consumerism occurs and the forcefulness happens is not correct if the avowing Alecto does not occur. sent19: if the attentionalness does not occur the fact that the structuralness occurs and the details happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the forcefulness occurs the detailing happens.

if the forcefulness occurs the detailing happens.

the forcefulness happens.

that the stretch does paganize and/or it is granulomatous is not correct.

sent1: the stretch is a sauce-alone if it is a petrel. sent2: the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone. sent3: the stretch is Lao. sent4: the stretch is a sauce-alone if it is a Truman. sent5: the stretch organizes and/or it is a IVP. sent6: either the boa is a sauce-alone or it is an option or both. sent7: the ropewalk is transoceanic if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a viscose and is not transoceanic is wrong. sent8: the stretch is a sauce-alone if that it is an enthusiasm hold. sent9: if the stretch does avow brig it does radio. sent10: the calcium does paganize and/or it does grapple calcium if there is something such that it is not a sauce-alone. sent11: either the stretch drains or it paganizes or both. sent12: something is not a sauce-alone but it is granulomatous if it does not avow opened. sent13: the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone or does avow indomethacin or both. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a viscose and it is not transoceanic does not hold. sent15: if the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone then it is granulomatous. sent16: the stretch does avow Orwell.

¬({C}{a} v {B}{a})

sent1: {JH}{a} -> {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: {CQ}{a} sent4: {BH}{a} -> {A}{a} sent5: ({AI}{a} v {CH}{a}) sent6: ({A}{bn} v {EO}{bn}) sent7: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}{b} sent8: {CP}{a} -> {A}{a} sent9: {AD}{a} -> {II}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}{fo} v {BF}{fo}) sent11: ({JE}{a} v {C}{a}) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent13: ({A}{a} v {HS}{a}) sent14: (Ex): ¬({H}x & ¬{E}x) sent15: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent16: {EF}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

either the calcium does paganize or it does grapple calcium or both.

({C}{fo} v {BF}{fo})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the stretch does paganize and/or it is granulomatous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the stretch is a sauce-alone if it is a petrel. sent2: the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone. sent3: the stretch is Lao. sent4: the stretch is a sauce-alone if it is a Truman. sent5: the stretch organizes and/or it is a IVP. sent6: either the boa is a sauce-alone or it is an option or both. sent7: the ropewalk is transoceanic if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a viscose and is not transoceanic is wrong. sent8: the stretch is a sauce-alone if that it is an enthusiasm hold. sent9: if the stretch does avow brig it does radio. sent10: the calcium does paganize and/or it does grapple calcium if there is something such that it is not a sauce-alone. sent11: either the stretch drains or it paganizes or both. sent12: something is not a sauce-alone but it is granulomatous if it does not avow opened. sent13: the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone or does avow indomethacin or both. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a viscose and it is not transoceanic does not hold. sent15: if the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone then it is granulomatous. sent16: the stretch does avow Orwell. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent2 -> int1: the stretch is granulomatous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone then it is granulomatous.

if the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone then it is granulomatous.

the stretch is a kind of a sauce-alone.

that the propagandist is feudatory and not a Warburg is not true.

sent1: the hay is not feudatory. sent2: the non-resistant is a damascene if the schlock is not damascene. sent3: the propagandist is not handmade if the fact that the Fula is not a dreadnought and grapples evasion is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the haunt is not a Warburg is not incorrect. sent5: that the stibnite does not promise hold. sent6: if the non-resistant damascenes the challah is not promotional but it is a kind of a voice. sent7: the stibnite guggles haunt and is not non-damascene if it is not a promise. sent8: the propagandist is a trompillo but it is not an informality. sent9: if the challah is not promotional but it does voice then the calcium is promotional. sent10: the sledder is a Warburg. sent11: if something is not handmade the fact that it is a kind of a bristletail and it does not match does not hold. sent12: the fact that if something is not nosocomial and is feudatory it is not a Warburg is not incorrect. sent13: if the propagandist is not a bristletail the antheridiophore is both non-nosocomial and feudatory. sent14: the conveyancer is a kind of a Warburg. sent15: the propagandist is feudatory. sent16: if the fact that something is a kind of a bristletail but it is not a matched does not hold then it is not a bristletail. sent17: the schlock is a damascene if that the stibnite is damascene is correct. sent18: the propagandist is Dostoevskian but it is not a kind of a reversible. sent19: the propagandist is not a Warburg. sent20: the propagandist is not dissuasive.

¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

sent1: ¬{A}{hq} sent2: {J}{f} -> {J}{e} sent3: ¬(¬{G}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{hi} sent5: ¬{M}{g} sent6: {J}{e} -> (¬{I}{d} & {K}{d}) sent7: ¬{M}{g} -> ({L}{g} & {J}{g}) sent8: ({HM}{a} & ¬{BI}{a}) sent9: (¬{I}{d} & {K}{d}) -> {I}{c} sent10: {B}{ie} sent11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent12: (x): (¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{C}{hk} & {A}{hk}) sent14: {B}{o} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent17: {J}{g} -> {J}{f} sent18: ({CS}{a} & ¬{DB}{a}) sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: ¬{CC}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the antheridiophore is not a Warburg.

¬{B}{hk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the propagandist is feudatory and not a Warburg is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the hay is not feudatory. sent2: the non-resistant is a damascene if the schlock is not damascene. sent3: the propagandist is not handmade if the fact that the Fula is not a dreadnought and grapples evasion is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the haunt is not a Warburg is not incorrect. sent5: that the stibnite does not promise hold. sent6: if the non-resistant damascenes the challah is not promotional but it is a kind of a voice. sent7: the stibnite guggles haunt and is not non-damascene if it is not a promise. sent8: the propagandist is a trompillo but it is not an informality. sent9: if the challah is not promotional but it does voice then the calcium is promotional. sent10: the sledder is a Warburg. sent11: if something is not handmade the fact that it is a kind of a bristletail and it does not match does not hold. sent12: the fact that if something is not nosocomial and is feudatory it is not a Warburg is not incorrect. sent13: if the propagandist is not a bristletail the antheridiophore is both non-nosocomial and feudatory. sent14: the conveyancer is a kind of a Warburg. sent15: the propagandist is feudatory. sent16: if the fact that something is a kind of a bristletail but it is not a matched does not hold then it is not a bristletail. sent17: the schlock is a damascene if that the stibnite is damascene is correct. sent18: the propagandist is Dostoevskian but it is not a kind of a reversible. sent19: the propagandist is not a Warburg. sent20: the propagandist is not dissuasive. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the propagandist is feudatory.

the propagandist is feudatory.

the propagandist is not a Warburg.

there is something such that it is not a kind of a sapsago and it does not lionize stalk.

sent1: if the fact that something does lionize stalk and is a sapsago does not hold then it does not avow Limburger. sent2: there exists something such that it does not avow poilu and avows print. sent3: if something is not absorbent that the print lionizes stalk and is a sapsago does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it does not lionize stalk. sent5: there is something such that it does avow hypochondria and it is not a low. sent6: something does not avow hypochondria and does not avow evasion. sent7: something is a kind of a sapsago that does not lionize stalk. sent8: if something does not linger then it is not compressible. sent9: an inlay is a Decalogue that does not linger. sent10: that the irregular is not an absorbent hold if the saddlebag is absorbent an emmer. sent11: the Jezebel is not sensory and is not a sapsago. sent12: something is not a sapsago and does lionize stalk. sent13: there is something such that it is not a pup. sent14: if the Limburger is a Decalogue but it does not linger then the print does not linger. sent15: if the Limburger does not avow Phocidae it inlays and is relative. sent16: the saddlebag is a kind of an absorbent and it is a kind of an emmer. sent17: the print does not lionize stalk and it is not empirical. sent18: there is something such that it does linger. sent19: the print is not a sapsago and does not lionize stalk if there is something such that it does linger. sent20: that the Limburger does not avow Phocidae is true if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does grapple prelude is not true. sent21: that the litmus is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does grapple prelude is not right. sent22: there exists something such that it is not a sapsago.

(Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{CU}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{M}x & {BT}x) sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent5: (Ex): ({DC}x & ¬{BB}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{DC}x & ¬{CN}x) sent7: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{BK}x sent9: (x): {D}x -> ({E}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: ({F}{e} & {K}{e}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent11: (¬{BI}{ad} & ¬{B}{ad}) sent12: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{CO}x sent14: ({E}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{H}{b} -> ({D}{b} & {G}{b}) sent16: ({F}{e} & {K}{e}) sent17: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{FE}{a}) sent18: (Ex): {A}x sent19: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{H}{b} sent21: ¬(¬{I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent22: (Ex): ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it is not compressible and it does not avow Limburger.

(Ex): (¬{BK}x & ¬{CU}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not a kind of a sapsago and it does not lionize stalk. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does lionize stalk and is a sapsago does not hold then it does not avow Limburger. sent2: there exists something such that it does not avow poilu and avows print. sent3: if something is not absorbent that the print lionizes stalk and is a sapsago does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that it does not lionize stalk. sent5: there is something such that it does avow hypochondria and it is not a low. sent6: something does not avow hypochondria and does not avow evasion. sent7: something is a kind of a sapsago that does not lionize stalk. sent8: if something does not linger then it is not compressible. sent9: an inlay is a Decalogue that does not linger. sent10: that the irregular is not an absorbent hold if the saddlebag is absorbent an emmer. sent11: the Jezebel is not sensory and is not a sapsago. sent12: something is not a sapsago and does lionize stalk. sent13: there is something such that it is not a pup. sent14: if the Limburger is a Decalogue but it does not linger then the print does not linger. sent15: if the Limburger does not avow Phocidae it inlays and is relative. sent16: the saddlebag is a kind of an absorbent and it is a kind of an emmer. sent17: the print does not lionize stalk and it is not empirical. sent18: there is something such that it does linger. sent19: the print is not a sapsago and does not lionize stalk if there is something such that it does linger. sent20: that the Limburger does not avow Phocidae is true if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does grapple prelude is not true. sent21: that the litmus is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does grapple prelude is not right. sent22: there exists something such that it is not a sapsago. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent19 -> int1: the print is not a sapsago and it does not lionize stalk.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does linger.

there is something such that it does linger.

the print is not a sapsago and does not lionize stalk if there is something such that it does linger.

the guggling springbok occurs.

sent1: if the guggling springbok happens the sigmoidoscopy occurs. sent2: the avowing re-introduction occurs if the incapableness happens. sent3: that the truck happens does not hold if the fact that not the sigmoidoscopy but the truck occurs is not true. sent4: the avowing degradation does not occur. sent5: the sigmoidoscopy does not occur and the maritimeness happens. sent6: the work does not occur. sent7: if the maritimeness does not occur the sigmoidoscopy happens and the guggling springbok occurs. sent8: the maritimeness happens. sent9: that the sigmoidoscopy does not occur and the trucking happens does not hold if that the mend does not occur is not false. sent10: not the chute but the guggling mandatary happens. sent11: if the working does not occur then the mend does not occur and the oviparousness does not occur.

{A}

sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {DO} -> {IO} sent3: ¬(¬{B} & {HR}) -> ¬{HR} sent4: ¬{AU} sent5: (¬{B} & {C}) sent6: ¬{G} sent7: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & {HR}) sent10: (¬{FT} & {EG}) sent11: ¬{G} -> (¬{D} & ¬{F})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the trucking does not occur and the sedition occurs.

(¬{HR} & {IJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the guggling springbok occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the guggling springbok happens the sigmoidoscopy occurs. sent2: the avowing re-introduction occurs if the incapableness happens. sent3: that the truck happens does not hold if the fact that not the sigmoidoscopy but the truck occurs is not true. sent4: the avowing degradation does not occur. sent5: the sigmoidoscopy does not occur and the maritimeness happens. sent6: the work does not occur. sent7: if the maritimeness does not occur the sigmoidoscopy happens and the guggling springbok occurs. sent8: the maritimeness happens. sent9: that the sigmoidoscopy does not occur and the trucking happens does not hold if that the mend does not occur is not false. sent10: not the chute but the guggling mandatary happens. sent11: if the working does not occur then the mend does not occur and the oviparousness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the guggling springbok happens.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the sigmoidoscopy happens.; sent5 -> int2: the sigmoidoscopy does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the guggling springbok happens the sigmoidoscopy occurs.

if the guggling springbok happens the sigmoidoscopy occurs.

the sigmoidoscopy does not occur and the maritimeness happens.

the coachman ossifies.

sent1: if the fact that something is not a brambling and/or it is not tactful is false it does litter. sent2: there is nothing such that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it ossifies and it avows IWW is not correct the coachman does not ossifies. sent4: the coachman appends. sent5: something does ossify if that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both does not hold. sent6: the canecutter is not a stop if that it grapples Ammodytidae and does simulate is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the coachman is not tactful or it appends or both does not hold is true then it does ossify. sent8: the fact that something does ossify and it avows IWW is not correct if it is not a stop.

{B}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

if that the fact that the hawthorn is not a brambling and/or it is not tactful is incorrect is not incorrect it does litter.

¬(¬{AM}{dp} v ¬{AA}{dp}) -> {AG}{dp}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the coachman ossifies. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a brambling and/or it is not tactful is false it does litter. sent2: there is nothing such that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it ossifies and it avows IWW is not correct the coachman does not ossifies. sent4: the coachman appends. sent5: something does ossify if that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both does not hold. sent6: the canecutter is not a stop if that it grapples Ammodytidae and does simulate is incorrect. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the coachman is not tactful or it appends or both does not hold is true then it does ossify. sent8: the fact that something does ossify and it avows IWW is not correct if it is not a stop. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the coachman ossifies if that it is not tactful and/or does not append is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the coachman is not tactful and/or does not append is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does ossify if that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both does not hold.

something does ossify if that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both does not hold.

there is nothing such that either it is not tactful or it does not append or both.

the acquisitiveness does not occur.

sent1: the tip-off happens. sent2: if the grappling simultaneity occurs then the custom occurs. sent3: the grappling lotto happens. sent4: the avowing WWW occurs. sent5: if the dormantness occurs the adoption occurs. sent6: the omen happens. sent7: the avowing quinone happens. sent8: the embolism happens. sent9: the acquisitiveness occurs if the grappling lotto occurs. sent10: the disinfection occurs. sent11: if the blastomericness occurs the grappling simultaneity happens. sent12: the abactinalness occurs. sent13: the Iberianness occurs. sent14: the grappling handstamp occurs if the isolationistness occurs. sent15: the experiment occurs. sent16: the bear happens.

¬{B}

sent1: {FA} sent2: {FM} -> {R} sent3: {A} sent4: {ID} sent5: {BH} -> {FF} sent6: {DO} sent7: {AN} sent8: {BE} sent9: {A} -> {B} sent10: {AS} sent11: {AP} -> {FM} sent12: {FQ} sent13: {ET} sent14: {AA} -> {CU} sent15: {AM} sent16: {AT}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the acquisitiveness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the tip-off happens. sent2: if the grappling simultaneity occurs then the custom occurs. sent3: the grappling lotto happens. sent4: the avowing WWW occurs. sent5: if the dormantness occurs the adoption occurs. sent6: the omen happens. sent7: the avowing quinone happens. sent8: the embolism happens. sent9: the acquisitiveness occurs if the grappling lotto occurs. sent10: the disinfection occurs. sent11: if the blastomericness occurs the grappling simultaneity happens. sent12: the abactinalness occurs. sent13: the Iberianness occurs. sent14: the grappling handstamp occurs if the isolationistness occurs. sent15: the experiment occurs. sent16: the bear happens. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the acquisitiveness occurs if the grappling lotto occurs.

the acquisitiveness occurs if the grappling lotto occurs.

the grappling lotto happens.

the fact that the earthwork does not secede and is not a kind of a goblin is false.

sent1: if something avows magnetization then it is not inexact. sent2: that the earthwork is not socialistic and it is not unrenewable is not true. sent3: the earthwork does not guggle serenade if the fact that there exists something such that that it does secede and does guggle serenade is false is not incorrect. sent4: that the earthwork does not secede but it is a kind of a goblin is incorrect. sent5: something does not secede and it is not a goblin if it is not inexact. sent6: the anglophile does not avow magnetization but it is a surf if it is not inward. sent7: the anglophile is not inward. sent8: the fact that the earthwork secedes and is not a goblin is false. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not inexact the fact that the earthwork does not secede and is not a kind of a goblin is not true. sent10: there is something such that it is not inexact. sent11: the earthwork avows magnetization if it surfs. sent12: if there is something such that it is not inexact then that the earthwork does not secede and is a kind of a goblin is not correct. sent13: if the avenue is not inexact that the ilium does secede and does guggle serenade does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

there exists something such that it does not guggle serenade.

(Ex): ¬{DP}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the earthwork does not secede and is not a kind of a goblin is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something avows magnetization then it is not inexact. sent2: that the earthwork is not socialistic and it is not unrenewable is not true. sent3: the earthwork does not guggle serenade if the fact that there exists something such that that it does secede and does guggle serenade is false is not incorrect. sent4: that the earthwork does not secede but it is a kind of a goblin is incorrect. sent5: something does not secede and it is not a goblin if it is not inexact. sent6: the anglophile does not avow magnetization but it is a surf if it is not inward. sent7: the anglophile is not inward. sent8: the fact that the earthwork secedes and is not a goblin is false. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not inexact the fact that the earthwork does not secede and is not a kind of a goblin is not true. sent10: there is something such that it is not inexact. sent11: the earthwork avows magnetization if it surfs. sent12: if there is something such that it is not inexact then that the earthwork does not secede and is a kind of a goblin is not correct. sent13: if the avenue is not inexact that the ilium does secede and does guggle serenade does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not inexact.

there is something such that it is not inexact.

if there exists something such that it is not inexact the fact that the earthwork does not secede and is not a kind of a goblin is not true.

that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the boarfish is a kind of a gamecock.

{C}{ha}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the cryptomonad does guggle bimetal if that the fact that it is non-prehistoric thing that is not a kind of a missionary is not wrong is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the cryptomonad guggles bimetal.; sent5 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the cryptomonad does guggle mink is correct.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal.

The fact that something is not prehistoric and not a kind of missionary is not correct.

that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong.

that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the boarfish is a kind of a gamecock.

{C}{ha}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the cryptomonad does guggle bimetal if that the fact that it is non-prehistoric thing that is not a kind of a missionary is not wrong is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the cryptomonad guggles bimetal.; sent5 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the cryptomonad does guggle mink is correct.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal.

It does guggle bimetal if something is not prehistoric and not a kind of missionary.

something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock.

that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect.

sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the boarfish is a kind of a gamecock.

{C}{ha}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the cryptomonad guggles bimetal and does guggle mink is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink. sent2: that the cryptomonad is not prehistoric and not a missionary is wrong. sent3: if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal. sent4: the boarfish guggles bimetal and does color if it does not guggle stemmer. sent5: something is not a colored and/or is not a gamecock. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the cryptomonad does guggle bimetal if that the fact that it is non-prehistoric thing that is not a kind of a missionary is not wrong is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the cryptomonad guggles bimetal.; sent5 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the cryptomonad does guggle mink is correct.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not prehistoric and it is not a kind of a missionary is not correct it does guggle bimetal.

The fact that something is not prehistoric and not a kind of missionary is incorrect.

if something is not a kind of a colored and/or it is not a gamecock the cryptomonad guggles mink.

the kingsnake is not a bolide.

sent1: something does not wink and does not grapple proprioceptor if it is a miller's-thumb. sent2: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does wink. sent3: the Sabbatarian does grapple proprioceptor. sent4: the kingsnake grapples proprioceptor. sent5: the fact that if something is not a kind of a wink then it is not a bolide hold. sent6: everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both. sent7: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does grapple proprioceptor. sent8: if something does wink then it is a bolide. sent9: the kingsnake is a semifluidity.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the spackle is a kind of a bolide.

{C}{bu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kingsnake is not a bolide. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not wink and does not grapple proprioceptor if it is a miller's-thumb. sent2: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does wink. sent3: the Sabbatarian does grapple proprioceptor. sent4: the kingsnake grapples proprioceptor. sent5: the fact that if something is not a kind of a wink then it is not a bolide hold. sent6: everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both. sent7: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does grapple proprioceptor. sent8: if something does wink then it is a bolide. sent9: the kingsnake is a semifluidity. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the Baptists is a wink and/or it grapples proprioceptor.; int1 & sent2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both.

Everything is a wink or grapple proprioceptor.

the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does wink.

the kingsnake is not a bolide.

sent1: something does not wink and does not grapple proprioceptor if it is a miller's-thumb. sent2: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does wink. sent3: the Sabbatarian does grapple proprioceptor. sent4: the kingsnake grapples proprioceptor. sent5: the fact that if something is not a kind of a wink then it is not a bolide hold. sent6: everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both. sent7: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does grapple proprioceptor. sent8: if something does wink then it is a bolide. sent9: the kingsnake is a semifluidity.

¬{C}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the spackle is a kind of a bolide.

{C}{bu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kingsnake is not a bolide. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not wink and does not grapple proprioceptor if it is a miller's-thumb. sent2: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does wink. sent3: the Sabbatarian does grapple proprioceptor. sent4: the kingsnake grapples proprioceptor. sent5: the fact that if something is not a kind of a wink then it is not a bolide hold. sent6: everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both. sent7: the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does grapple proprioceptor. sent8: if something does wink then it is a bolide. sent9: the kingsnake is a semifluidity. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the Baptists is a wink and/or it grapples proprioceptor.; int1 & sent2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is a wink or it does grapple proprioceptor or both.

It is either a wink or a grapple proprioceptor.

the kingsnake is a bolide if the Baptists does grapple proprioceptor.

the kumquat does grapple linecut.

sent1: if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese. sent2: if there exists something such that it is infelicitous then the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and it is not infelicitous is not correct. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Genoese then it is a dither and grapples linecut. sent4: the fact that if something is not infelicitous it is not a ornithopod and it is not a branchiopod is not wrong. sent5: the spittlebug grapples linecut. sent6: the Limburger is a kind of a metamere if it is a kind of a Genoese. sent7: something is not a Genoese if it is a kind of a branchiopod that is not a kind of a Marshall. sent8: that the Limburger is not Genoese and not a Marshall does not hold if the kumquat is not a ornithopod. sent9: the Limburger grapples linecut. sent10: the fact that the Limburger dithers and is not vagal is not true. sent11: if the Limburger is not a dither then it is a kind of a Genoese. sent12: if the narcotic either does not lionize excerpt or does not avow Limburger or both then the kumquat is felicitous. sent13: everything is infelicitous. sent14: the main is not a Genoese if that the Limburger is not Genoese and it is not a Marshall is not true. sent15: if the Limburger is Genoese but it does not grapple linecut that the kumquat does not grapple linecut is right. sent16: there is something such that it lionizes excerpt. sent17: if the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and is not infelicitous is incorrect then it is a Marshall. sent18: the fact that the Limburger is a Genoese and does not grapple linecut is true if the narcotic is a kind of a ornithopod. sent19: the kumquat does grapple linecut if the Limburger is Genoese. sent20: the fact that the Limburger is vagal and does not avow Sinatra is wrong. sent21: if something is a Marshall then it is a ornithopod. sent22: that the Limburger is a CO and it does dither is not right. sent23: if there exists something such that it lionizes excerpt the harpoon is infelicitous and does avow Limburger.

{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the kumquat does not grapple linecut.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kumquat does grapple linecut. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese. sent2: if there exists something such that it is infelicitous then the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and it is not infelicitous is not correct. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Genoese then it is a dither and grapples linecut. sent4: the fact that if something is not infelicitous it is not a ornithopod and it is not a branchiopod is not wrong. sent5: the spittlebug grapples linecut. sent6: the Limburger is a kind of a metamere if it is a kind of a Genoese. sent7: something is not a Genoese if it is a kind of a branchiopod that is not a kind of a Marshall. sent8: that the Limburger is not Genoese and not a Marshall does not hold if the kumquat is not a ornithopod. sent9: the Limburger grapples linecut. sent10: the fact that the Limburger dithers and is not vagal is not true. sent11: if the Limburger is not a dither then it is a kind of a Genoese. sent12: if the narcotic either does not lionize excerpt or does not avow Limburger or both then the kumquat is felicitous. sent13: everything is infelicitous. sent14: the main is not a Genoese if that the Limburger is not Genoese and it is not a Marshall is not true. sent15: if the Limburger is Genoese but it does not grapple linecut that the kumquat does not grapple linecut is right. sent16: there is something such that it lionizes excerpt. sent17: if the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and is not infelicitous is incorrect then it is a Marshall. sent18: the fact that the Limburger is a Genoese and does not grapple linecut is true if the narcotic is a kind of a ornithopod. sent19: the kumquat does grapple linecut if the Limburger is Genoese. sent20: the fact that the Limburger is vagal and does not avow Sinatra is wrong. sent21: if something is a Marshall then it is a ornithopod. sent22: that the Limburger is a CO and it does dither is not right. sent23: if there exists something such that it lionizes excerpt the harpoon is infelicitous and does avow Limburger. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the Limburger is Genoese.; sent19 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese.

If that is not correct, then it is a Genoese.

the fact that the Limburger dithers and is not vagal is not true.

the kumquat does grapple linecut.

sent1: if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese. sent2: if there exists something such that it is infelicitous then the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and it is not infelicitous is not correct. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Genoese then it is a dither and grapples linecut. sent4: the fact that if something is not infelicitous it is not a ornithopod and it is not a branchiopod is not wrong. sent5: the spittlebug grapples linecut. sent6: the Limburger is a kind of a metamere if it is a kind of a Genoese. sent7: something is not a Genoese if it is a kind of a branchiopod that is not a kind of a Marshall. sent8: that the Limburger is not Genoese and not a Marshall does not hold if the kumquat is not a ornithopod. sent9: the Limburger grapples linecut. sent10: the fact that the Limburger dithers and is not vagal is not true. sent11: if the Limburger is not a dither then it is a kind of a Genoese. sent12: if the narcotic either does not lionize excerpt or does not avow Limburger or both then the kumquat is felicitous. sent13: everything is infelicitous. sent14: the main is not a Genoese if that the Limburger is not Genoese and it is not a Marshall is not true. sent15: if the Limburger is Genoese but it does not grapple linecut that the kumquat does not grapple linecut is right. sent16: there is something such that it lionizes excerpt. sent17: if the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and is not infelicitous is incorrect then it is a Marshall. sent18: the fact that the Limburger is a Genoese and does not grapple linecut is true if the narcotic is a kind of a ornithopod. sent19: the kumquat does grapple linecut if the Limburger is Genoese. sent20: the fact that the Limburger is vagal and does not avow Sinatra is wrong. sent21: if something is a Marshall then it is a ornithopod. sent22: that the Limburger is a CO and it does dither is not right. sent23: if there exists something such that it lionizes excerpt the harpoon is infelicitous and does avow Limburger.

{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the kumquat does not grapple linecut.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the kumquat does grapple linecut. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese. sent2: if there exists something such that it is infelicitous then the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and it is not infelicitous is not correct. sent3: if something is not a kind of a Genoese then it is a dither and grapples linecut. sent4: the fact that if something is not infelicitous it is not a ornithopod and it is not a branchiopod is not wrong. sent5: the spittlebug grapples linecut. sent6: the Limburger is a kind of a metamere if it is a kind of a Genoese. sent7: something is not a Genoese if it is a kind of a branchiopod that is not a kind of a Marshall. sent8: that the Limburger is not Genoese and not a Marshall does not hold if the kumquat is not a ornithopod. sent9: the Limburger grapples linecut. sent10: the fact that the Limburger dithers and is not vagal is not true. sent11: if the Limburger is not a dither then it is a kind of a Genoese. sent12: if the narcotic either does not lionize excerpt or does not avow Limburger or both then the kumquat is felicitous. sent13: everything is infelicitous. sent14: the main is not a Genoese if that the Limburger is not Genoese and it is not a Marshall is not true. sent15: if the Limburger is Genoese but it does not grapple linecut that the kumquat does not grapple linecut is right. sent16: there is something such that it lionizes excerpt. sent17: if the fact that the boarhound is not a Marshall and is not infelicitous is incorrect then it is a Marshall. sent18: the fact that the Limburger is a Genoese and does not grapple linecut is true if the narcotic is a kind of a ornithopod. sent19: the kumquat does grapple linecut if the Limburger is Genoese. sent20: the fact that the Limburger is vagal and does not avow Sinatra is wrong. sent21: if something is a Marshall then it is a ornithopod. sent22: that the Limburger is a CO and it does dither is not right. sent23: if there exists something such that it lionizes excerpt the harpoon is infelicitous and does avow Limburger. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the Limburger is Genoese.; sent19 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the Limburger is a kind of a dither but it is not vagal is not correct then it is a Genoese.

It is a Genoese if the Limburger is a kind of dither but it is not correct.

the kumquat does grapple linecut if the Limburger is Genoese.

the heredity grapples archespore and is not a woodsman.

sent1: the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman. sent2: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is an outgo does not hold. sent3: the fact that something grapples archespore but it is not a kind of a woodsman is not true if it lionizes moralism. sent4: the heredity is chancrous. sent5: if something is Congregational then it lionizes moralism. sent6: the heredity is Congregational if the fact that the acylation is both Congregational and impermissible is not true. sent7: if the acylation lionizes moralism then that it is not a kind of a dribbler and it is not an outgo is incorrect. sent8: the peacoat is not postganglionic and it is not a Gabor. sent9: the cutworm is an outgo but not a Callithrix. sent10: if the acylation is a woodsman then the heredity does grapple archespore. sent11: that the acylation is a kind of a dribbler but it is not a kind of an outgo does not hold. sent12: the praetor is a interrupter but not impatient. sent13: the heredity does grapple archespore. sent14: The moralism does lionize acylation. sent15: that the acylation is a dribbler but it is not an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent16: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is a kind of an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent17: the acylation does lionize moralism.

({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: {BP}{b} sent5: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (¬{BR}{gm} & ¬{DQ}{gm}) sent9: ({AB}{ct} & ¬{DP}{ct}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ({GE}{gu} & ¬{BO}{gu}) sent13: {C}{b} sent14: {AC}{aa} sent15: {B}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: {B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the heredity does grapple archespore and is not a woodsman is not true.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heredity grapples archespore and is not a woodsman. ; $context$ = sent1: the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman. sent2: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is an outgo does not hold. sent3: the fact that something grapples archespore but it is not a kind of a woodsman is not true if it lionizes moralism. sent4: the heredity is chancrous. sent5: if something is Congregational then it lionizes moralism. sent6: the heredity is Congregational if the fact that the acylation is both Congregational and impermissible is not true. sent7: if the acylation lionizes moralism then that it is not a kind of a dribbler and it is not an outgo is incorrect. sent8: the peacoat is not postganglionic and it is not a Gabor. sent9: the cutworm is an outgo but not a Callithrix. sent10: if the acylation is a woodsman then the heredity does grapple archespore. sent11: that the acylation is a kind of a dribbler but it is not a kind of an outgo does not hold. sent12: the praetor is a interrupter but not impatient. sent13: the heredity does grapple archespore. sent14: The moralism does lionize acylation. sent15: that the acylation is a dribbler but it is not an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent16: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is a kind of an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent17: the acylation does lionize moralism. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman.

If it is not a woodsman, the acylation is neither a dribbler nor an outgo.

if the acylation lionizes moralism then that it is not a kind of a dribbler and it is not an outgo is incorrect.

the heredity grapples archespore and is not a woodsman.

sent1: the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman. sent2: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is an outgo does not hold. sent3: the fact that something grapples archespore but it is not a kind of a woodsman is not true if it lionizes moralism. sent4: the heredity is chancrous. sent5: if something is Congregational then it lionizes moralism. sent6: the heredity is Congregational if the fact that the acylation is both Congregational and impermissible is not true. sent7: if the acylation lionizes moralism then that it is not a kind of a dribbler and it is not an outgo is incorrect. sent8: the peacoat is not postganglionic and it is not a Gabor. sent9: the cutworm is an outgo but not a Callithrix. sent10: if the acylation is a woodsman then the heredity does grapple archespore. sent11: that the acylation is a kind of a dribbler but it is not a kind of an outgo does not hold. sent12: the praetor is a interrupter but not impatient. sent13: the heredity does grapple archespore. sent14: The moralism does lionize acylation. sent15: that the acylation is a dribbler but it is not an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent16: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is a kind of an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent17: the acylation does lionize moralism.

({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: {BP}{b} sent5: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (¬{BR}{gm} & ¬{DQ}{gm}) sent9: ({AB}{ct} & ¬{DP}{ct}) sent10: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent12: ({GE}{gu} & ¬{BO}{gu}) sent13: {C}{b} sent14: {AC}{aa} sent15: {B}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent17: {B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the heredity does grapple archespore and is not a woodsman is not true.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the heredity grapples archespore and is not a woodsman. ; $context$ = sent1: the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman. sent2: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is an outgo does not hold. sent3: the fact that something grapples archespore but it is not a kind of a woodsman is not true if it lionizes moralism. sent4: the heredity is chancrous. sent5: if something is Congregational then it lionizes moralism. sent6: the heredity is Congregational if the fact that the acylation is both Congregational and impermissible is not true. sent7: if the acylation lionizes moralism then that it is not a kind of a dribbler and it is not an outgo is incorrect. sent8: the peacoat is not postganglionic and it is not a Gabor. sent9: the cutworm is an outgo but not a Callithrix. sent10: if the acylation is a woodsman then the heredity does grapple archespore. sent11: that the acylation is a kind of a dribbler but it is not a kind of an outgo does not hold. sent12: the praetor is a interrupter but not impatient. sent13: the heredity does grapple archespore. sent14: The moralism does lionize acylation. sent15: that the acylation is a dribbler but it is not an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent16: the fact that the acylation is not a dribbler but it is a kind of an outgo is incorrect if it does lionize moralism. sent17: the acylation does lionize moralism. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the acylation is both not a dribbler and not an outgo if it is not a woodsman.

If it is not a woodsman, the acylation is not a dribbler.

the acylation does lionize moralism.

the baldpate is not virile.

sent1: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Honduran or it is not Wordsworthian or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a Turkish and it is oneiric does not hold if it is not prejudicial. sent3: if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager. sent4: if something is not joyous that it is a argentinosaur that is not a canton is not right. sent5: if the boa is not prehensile and is a kind of a pastorale the fact that the prokaryote is prehensile is false. sent6: something is virile if it guggles cottager. sent7: the boa is not prehensile but it is a pastorale if there exists something such that it is not a argentinosaur. sent8: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or it does not guggle makeup is incorrect. sent9: the sulfur does not overleap and does not guggle cottager if the prokaryote is not prehensile. sent10: if that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or guggles makeup is not true it guggles cottager. sent11: the fact that the makeup guggles cottager and/or it is not a kind of a unguiculate is false. sent12: the baldpate does guggle makeup. sent13: if the fact that something is a argentinosaur and is not a canton is incorrect then it is not a kind of a argentinosaur. sent14: if that something is a Turkish and oneiric is wrong then it is not joyous. sent15: the chop is not prejudicial if there is something such that the fact that it is not reasonable but prejudicial does not hold. sent16: that the fact that the nozzle is not reasonable and is prejudicial is not false is not correct. sent17: if something is a pater it is unprofessional.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the baldpate is not virile.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the baldpate is not virile. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Honduran or it is not Wordsworthian or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a Turkish and it is oneiric does not hold if it is not prejudicial. sent3: if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager. sent4: if something is not joyous that it is a argentinosaur that is not a canton is not right. sent5: if the boa is not prehensile and is a kind of a pastorale the fact that the prokaryote is prehensile is false. sent6: something is virile if it guggles cottager. sent7: the boa is not prehensile but it is a pastorale if there exists something such that it is not a argentinosaur. sent8: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or it does not guggle makeup is incorrect. sent9: the sulfur does not overleap and does not guggle cottager if the prokaryote is not prehensile. sent10: if that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or guggles makeup is not true it guggles cottager. sent11: the fact that the makeup guggles cottager and/or it is not a kind of a unguiculate is false. sent12: the baldpate does guggle makeup. sent13: if the fact that something is a argentinosaur and is not a canton is incorrect then it is not a kind of a argentinosaur. sent14: if that something is a Turkish and oneiric is wrong then it is not joyous. sent15: the chop is not prejudicial if there is something such that the fact that it is not reasonable but prejudicial does not hold. sent16: that the fact that the nozzle is not reasonable and is prejudicial is not false is not correct. sent17: if something is a pater it is unprofessional. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the baldpate guggles cottager.; sent6 -> int2: if the baldpate guggles cottager it is virile.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager.

If the baldpate is a Verdicchio or not, then it is a cottager.

the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or it does not guggle makeup is incorrect.

the baldpate is not virile.

sent1: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Honduran or it is not Wordsworthian or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a Turkish and it is oneiric does not hold if it is not prejudicial. sent3: if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager. sent4: if something is not joyous that it is a argentinosaur that is not a canton is not right. sent5: if the boa is not prehensile and is a kind of a pastorale the fact that the prokaryote is prehensile is false. sent6: something is virile if it guggles cottager. sent7: the boa is not prehensile but it is a pastorale if there exists something such that it is not a argentinosaur. sent8: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or it does not guggle makeup is incorrect. sent9: the sulfur does not overleap and does not guggle cottager if the prokaryote is not prehensile. sent10: if that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or guggles makeup is not true it guggles cottager. sent11: the fact that the makeup guggles cottager and/or it is not a kind of a unguiculate is false. sent12: the baldpate does guggle makeup. sent13: if the fact that something is a argentinosaur and is not a canton is incorrect then it is not a kind of a argentinosaur. sent14: if that something is a Turkish and oneiric is wrong then it is not joyous. sent15: the chop is not prejudicial if there is something such that the fact that it is not reasonable but prejudicial does not hold. sent16: that the fact that the nozzle is not reasonable and is prejudicial is not false is not correct. sent17: if something is a pater it is unprofessional.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the baldpate is not virile.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the baldpate is not virile. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Honduran or it is not Wordsworthian or both does not hold. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a Turkish and it is oneiric does not hold if it is not prejudicial. sent3: if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager. sent4: if something is not joyous that it is a argentinosaur that is not a canton is not right. sent5: if the boa is not prehensile and is a kind of a pastorale the fact that the prokaryote is prehensile is false. sent6: something is virile if it guggles cottager. sent7: the boa is not prehensile but it is a pastorale if there exists something such that it is not a argentinosaur. sent8: the fact that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or it does not guggle makeup is incorrect. sent9: the sulfur does not overleap and does not guggle cottager if the prokaryote is not prehensile. sent10: if that the baldpate is a kind of a Verdicchio and/or guggles makeup is not true it guggles cottager. sent11: the fact that the makeup guggles cottager and/or it is not a kind of a unguiculate is false. sent12: the baldpate does guggle makeup. sent13: if the fact that something is a argentinosaur and is not a canton is incorrect then it is not a kind of a argentinosaur. sent14: if that something is a Turkish and oneiric is wrong then it is not joyous. sent15: the chop is not prejudicial if there is something such that the fact that it is not reasonable but prejudicial does not hold. sent16: that the fact that the nozzle is not reasonable and is prejudicial is not false is not correct. sent17: if something is a pater it is unprofessional. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the baldpate guggles cottager.; sent6 -> int2: if the baldpate guggles cottager it is virile.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the baldpate is a Verdicchio or it does not guggle makeup or both does not hold then it guggles cottager.

If the baldpate is a Verdicchio, or it does not guggle makeup, or both do not hold, then it is a cottager.

something is virile if it guggles cottager.

the acetate grapples Cynodon.

sent1: the acetate does not grapple Cynodon if the fact that the cutworm does establish but it is not intestinal is false. sent2: if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes. sent3: if the baldric does establish then the acetate grapples Cynodon. sent4: the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow. sent5: the cutworm is not a Mallon. sent6: if something does not clangor then it is dental. sent7: the baldric establishes if the cutworm is a Mallon that is a sallow.

{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the acetate does not grapple Cynodon hold.

¬{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the acetate grapples Cynodon. ; $context$ = sent1: the acetate does not grapple Cynodon if the fact that the cutworm does establish but it is not intestinal is false. sent2: if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes. sent3: if the baldric does establish then the acetate grapples Cynodon. sent4: the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow. sent5: the cutworm is not a Mallon. sent6: if something does not clangor then it is dental. sent7: the baldric establishes if the cutworm is a Mallon that is a sallow. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the baldric does establish.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes.

The baldric establishes if the cutworm is not a Mallon.

the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow.

the acetate grapples Cynodon.

sent1: the acetate does not grapple Cynodon if the fact that the cutworm does establish but it is not intestinal is false. sent2: if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes. sent3: if the baldric does establish then the acetate grapples Cynodon. sent4: the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow. sent5: the cutworm is not a Mallon. sent6: if something does not clangor then it is dental. sent7: the baldric establishes if the cutworm is a Mallon that is a sallow.

{A}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the acetate does not grapple Cynodon hold.

¬{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the acetate grapples Cynodon. ; $context$ = sent1: the acetate does not grapple Cynodon if the fact that the cutworm does establish but it is not intestinal is false. sent2: if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes. sent3: if the baldric does establish then the acetate grapples Cynodon. sent4: the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow. sent5: the cutworm is not a Mallon. sent6: if something does not clangor then it is dental. sent7: the baldric establishes if the cutworm is a Mallon that is a sallow. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the baldric does establish.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cutworm is not a Mallon and does sallow the baldric establishes.

If the cutworm is a Mallon and does not allow the baldric establishes.

if the baldric does establish then the acetate grapples Cynodon.

the derailing does not occur.

sent1: the anterogradeness occurs. sent2: the hackwork occurs. sent3: the electricalness occurs. sent4: the non-anterogradeness leads to that the farness and the derailing occurs. sent5: if that the anterogradeness happens and the homileticness does not occur is false the anterogradeness does not occur. sent6: if the avowing plexor happens then the fact that both the anterogradeness and the non-homileticness occurs is not true. sent7: the farness occurs. sent8: the sounding does not occur. sent9: the radiopaqueness does not occur if both the extrusion and the sweeping occurs. sent10: that the derailing happens and the farness happens is triggered by the non-anterogradeness.

¬{C}

sent1: {B} sent2: {DS} sent3: {DT} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent5: ¬({B} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{E}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{IB} sent9: ({AB} & {G}) -> ¬{CN} sent10: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the derailing happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the derailing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the anterogradeness occurs. sent2: the hackwork occurs. sent3: the electricalness occurs. sent4: the non-anterogradeness leads to that the farness and the derailing occurs. sent5: if that the anterogradeness happens and the homileticness does not occur is false the anterogradeness does not occur. sent6: if the avowing plexor happens then the fact that both the anterogradeness and the non-homileticness occurs is not true. sent7: the farness occurs. sent8: the sounding does not occur. sent9: the radiopaqueness does not occur if both the extrusion and the sweeping occurs. sent10: that the derailing happens and the farness happens is triggered by the non-anterogradeness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the farness occurs.

the farness occurs.

the anterogradeness occurs.

the haunt is a suprematist.

sent1: the haunt is lobeliaceous and it does guggle knothole. sent2: the haunt is a suprematist and is lobeliaceous if there is something such that it does not grapple goateed. sent3: the haunt is lobeliaceous. sent4: the haunt is not lobeliaceous if the testator is both not non-theist and benevolent. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a flagon is not wrong then the haunt grapples goateed and it guggles enantiomorph. sent6: something is not lobeliaceous. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not enolic the spleenwort does guggle neoconservatism and it does grapple goateed. sent8: there exists something such that it does grapple goateed. sent9: if something is benevolent it is not lobeliaceous. sent10: the haunt is lobeliaceous if there exists something such that it does not grapple goateed. sent11: if that something does grapple goateed and it is a kind of a suprematist is incorrect then it is not a sheller. sent12: if something is not lobeliaceous that it grapples goateed and is a kind of a suprematist is not correct. sent13: if that the meteorite is not a trip is not incorrect the fact that it is a kind of a rhumba that does not grapple sill is incorrect. sent14: that the meteorite is blue-collar hold. sent15: the gang does grapple goateed and it is representational. sent16: something is a theist that is benevolent if it does not exalt. sent17: the meteorite does grapple sill if the fact that it is a rhumba that does not grapple sill is incorrect. sent18: if something is not lobeliaceous it is not a kind of a suprematist and does grapple goateed.

{B}{a}

sent1: ({C}{a} & {GO}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: {C}{a} sent4: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{AK}x -> ({A}{a} & {DQ}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent7: (x): ¬{FU}x -> ({AQ}{as} & {A}{as}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (x): {D}x -> ¬{C}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{JD}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent13: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬({I}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent14: {H}{c} sent15: ({A}{h} & {BM}{h}) sent16: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent17: ¬({I}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {G}{c} sent18: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the haunt is not a kind of a suprematist.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the haunt is a suprematist. ; $context$ = sent1: the haunt is lobeliaceous and it does guggle knothole. sent2: the haunt is a suprematist and is lobeliaceous if there is something such that it does not grapple goateed. sent3: the haunt is lobeliaceous. sent4: the haunt is not lobeliaceous if the testator is both not non-theist and benevolent. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a flagon is not wrong then the haunt grapples goateed and it guggles enantiomorph. sent6: something is not lobeliaceous. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not enolic the spleenwort does guggle neoconservatism and it does grapple goateed. sent8: there exists something such that it does grapple goateed. sent9: if something is benevolent it is not lobeliaceous. sent10: the haunt is lobeliaceous if there exists something such that it does not grapple goateed. sent11: if that something does grapple goateed and it is a kind of a suprematist is incorrect then it is not a sheller. sent12: if something is not lobeliaceous that it grapples goateed and is a kind of a suprematist is not correct. sent13: if that the meteorite is not a trip is not incorrect the fact that it is a kind of a rhumba that does not grapple sill is incorrect. sent14: that the meteorite is blue-collar hold. sent15: the gang does grapple goateed and it is representational. sent16: something is a theist that is benevolent if it does not exalt. sent17: the meteorite does grapple sill if the fact that it is a rhumba that does not grapple sill is incorrect. sent18: if something is not lobeliaceous it is not a kind of a suprematist and does grapple goateed. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the haunt is not lobeliaceous if the testator is both not non-theist and benevolent.

the haunt is not lobeliaceous if the testator is both not non-theist and benevolent.

if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a flagon is not wrong then the haunt grapples goateed and it guggles enantiomorph.

the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge.

sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬{HO}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): {AB}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fantail is a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the neckwear is not a Belarus.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the fantail does lionize charity and is a kind of a Belarus is false.; sent12 -> int3: if that the fact that the fantail lionizes charity and is a Belarus is not incorrect is incorrect then it is not a subterfuge.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct.

The fact that it does not sightsee and that it is not a Weser is correct.

that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect.

the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge.

sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬{HO}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): {AB}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fantail is a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the neckwear is not a Belarus.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the fantail does lionize charity and is a kind of a Belarus is false.; sent12 -> int3: if that the fact that the fantail lionizes charity and is a Belarus is not incorrect is incorrect then it is not a subterfuge.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct.

The fact that it is not a Weser and that it is not sightsee is correct.

that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus.

the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge.

sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬{HO}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (Ex): {AB}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fantail is a subterfuge.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fantail is a kind of a subterfuge. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fantail does lionize charity and it is a kind of a Belarus is not right if the neckwear is not a kind of a Belarus. sent2: the neckwear is not a buttinsky. sent3: the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct. sent4: if the neckwear does not lionize charity the fantail is a subterfuge and it is a kind of a Belarus. sent5: if there is something such that that it does not sightsee or it is a Weser or both is incorrect then the neckwear is not a Belarus. sent6: the fantail is not a subterfuge if the fact that it does not lionize charity is not false. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it does sightsee or is not a kind of a Weser or both is wrong. sent8: the neckwear does not lionize charity if there is something such that that it is not a subterfuge and/or is not a Belarus is wrong. sent9: that the neckwear is not a Belarus hold if there is something such that that either it does not sightsee or it is not a kind of a Weser or both is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Weser. sent11: something does not sightsee and/or is not a Weser. sent12: if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge. sent13: if something does not lionize charity then it is not a subterfuge. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the neckwear is not a Belarus.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the fantail does lionize charity and is a kind of a Belarus is false.; sent12 -> int3: if that the fact that the fantail lionizes charity and is a Belarus is not incorrect is incorrect then it is not a subterfuge.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that that the fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is true does not hold is correct.

The fact that it does not sightsee and/or it is not a Weser is incorrect.

if the fact that something does lionize charity and it is a Belarus does not hold then it is not a subterfuge.

the prokaryote grapples charnel.

sent1: if the fact that something grapples charnel but it is not a Kigali does not hold then it does not grapples charnel. sent2: the Latino is topographical. sent3: the prokaryote is microeconomic. sent4: the fact that the propenonitrile grapples charnel and is not a kind of a Kigali is incorrect if there exists something such that it is radial-ply. sent5: the fact that the prokaryote is radial-ply and it is classicistic hold if it is not meteoric. sent6: something is microeconomic or topographical or both if it is not radial-ply. sent7: something that guggles shrewdness and does not avow washroom is not a kind of a jet. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is meteoric thing that avows prokaryote is false then the prokaryote is not meteoric. sent9: there exists something such that that it is meteoric and does avow prokaryote is not right. sent10: that the stenograph is not topographical hold. sent11: the prokaryote is not topographical. sent12: if a microeconomic thing is not topographical then the fact that it does not grapple charnel hold.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{jg} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}{ap} & ¬{E}{ap}) sent5: ¬{G}{a} -> ({D}{a} & {F}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent7: (x): ({CO}x & ¬{IA}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & {I}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {I}x) sent10: ¬{B}{df} sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the propenonitrile is topographical.

{B}{ap}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the prokaryote grapples charnel. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something grapples charnel but it is not a Kigali does not hold then it does not grapples charnel. sent2: the Latino is topographical. sent3: the prokaryote is microeconomic. sent4: the fact that the propenonitrile grapples charnel and is not a kind of a Kigali is incorrect if there exists something such that it is radial-ply. sent5: the fact that the prokaryote is radial-ply and it is classicistic hold if it is not meteoric. sent6: something is microeconomic or topographical or both if it is not radial-ply. sent7: something that guggles shrewdness and does not avow washroom is not a kind of a jet. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is meteoric thing that avows prokaryote is false then the prokaryote is not meteoric. sent9: there exists something such that that it is meteoric and does avow prokaryote is not right. sent10: that the stenograph is not topographical hold. sent11: the prokaryote is not topographical. sent12: if a microeconomic thing is not topographical then the fact that it does not grapple charnel hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the prokaryote is microeconomic thing that is not topographical.; sent12 -> int2: the prokaryote does not grapple charnel if it is microeconomic and it is non-topographical.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prokaryote is microeconomic.

Micro economic is the prokaryote.

the prokaryote is not topographical.

the prokaryote grapples charnel.

sent1: if the fact that something grapples charnel but it is not a Kigali does not hold then it does not grapples charnel. sent2: the Latino is topographical. sent3: the prokaryote is microeconomic. sent4: the fact that the propenonitrile grapples charnel and is not a kind of a Kigali is incorrect if there exists something such that it is radial-ply. sent5: the fact that the prokaryote is radial-ply and it is classicistic hold if it is not meteoric. sent6: something is microeconomic or topographical or both if it is not radial-ply. sent7: something that guggles shrewdness and does not avow washroom is not a kind of a jet. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is meteoric thing that avows prokaryote is false then the prokaryote is not meteoric. sent9: there exists something such that that it is meteoric and does avow prokaryote is not right. sent10: that the stenograph is not topographical hold. sent11: the prokaryote is not topographical. sent12: if a microeconomic thing is not topographical then the fact that it does not grapple charnel hold.

{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{jg} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}{ap} & ¬{E}{ap}) sent5: ¬{G}{a} -> ({D}{a} & {F}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent7: (x): ({CO}x & ¬{IA}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & {I}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬({G}x & {I}x) sent10: ¬{B}{df} sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the propenonitrile is topographical.

{B}{ap}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the prokaryote grapples charnel. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something grapples charnel but it is not a Kigali does not hold then it does not grapples charnel. sent2: the Latino is topographical. sent3: the prokaryote is microeconomic. sent4: the fact that the propenonitrile grapples charnel and is not a kind of a Kigali is incorrect if there exists something such that it is radial-ply. sent5: the fact that the prokaryote is radial-ply and it is classicistic hold if it is not meteoric. sent6: something is microeconomic or topographical or both if it is not radial-ply. sent7: something that guggles shrewdness and does not avow washroom is not a kind of a jet. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is meteoric thing that avows prokaryote is false then the prokaryote is not meteoric. sent9: there exists something such that that it is meteoric and does avow prokaryote is not right. sent10: that the stenograph is not topographical hold. sent11: the prokaryote is not topographical. sent12: if a microeconomic thing is not topographical then the fact that it does not grapple charnel hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the prokaryote is microeconomic thing that is not topographical.; sent12 -> int2: the prokaryote does not grapple charnel if it is microeconomic and it is non-topographical.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the prokaryote is microeconomic.

Micro economic is what the prokaryote is.

if a microeconomic thing is not topographical then the fact that it does not grapple charnel hold.

the fairing does not occur.

sent1: that the impingement occurs and the grappling third occurs does not hold if the canonicness does not occur. sent2: either the tympanoplasty happens or the karate happens or both. sent3: the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs and/or the grappling third happens. sent4: that the admiralty does not occur but the postictalness happens is not wrong. sent5: the grappling Togaviridae happens. sent6: that the grappling Missourian and/or the reception occurs leads to that the say-so does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the premeditating happens is not incorrect that the fairing and/or the non-canonicness happens does not hold. sent8: if the Brazilian does not occur then the avowing blastoma and/or the topologicalness happens. sent9: the avowing Baldwin does not occur. sent10: the high-energiness happens and/or the lionizing hansom happens. sent11: if the Brazilian happens the topologicalness does not occur and the avowing blastoma does not occur. sent12: the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs. sent13: the chirrup does not occur if the existentialness occurs but the grappling Missourian does not occur. sent14: if the chirrup does not occur the transmission does not occur or the withdrawal does not occur or both. sent15: if that the withdrawal does not occur and the chirrup does not occur does not hold the withdrawal happens. sent16: if that the fair occurs or the canonicness does not occur or both is not correct then the fact that the impingement does not occur is right. sent17: that the withdrawal occurs causes that the Brazilianness occurs. sent18: the fact that the withdrawal does not occur and the chirrup does not occur is not true if the transmission occurs. sent19: the avowing Baldwin leads to that not the vomit but the unalikeness happens. sent20: the transmission is caused by that the non-existentialness and the grappling Missourian occurs. sent21: the non-topologicalness yields that both the premeditating and the non-canonicness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent2: ({FU} v {BB}) sent3: ({C} v {B}) -> ¬{D} sent4: (¬{IU} & {BG}) sent5: {IN} sent6: ({M} v {FK}) -> ¬{FS} sent7: {F} -> ¬({D} v ¬{E}) sent8: ¬{I} -> ({H} v {G}) sent9: ¬{A} sent10: ({DU} v {IK}) sent11: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent12: {C} -> ¬{D} sent13: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent14: ¬{L} -> (¬{K} v ¬{J}) sent15: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{L}) -> {J} sent16: ¬({D} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent17: {J} -> {I} sent18: {K} -> ¬(¬{J} & ¬{L}) sent19: {A} -> (¬{IF} & {EQ}) sent20: (¬{N} & {M}) -> {K} sent21: ¬{G} -> ({F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

not the vomit but the unalikeness occurs.

(¬{IF} & {EQ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fairing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the impingement occurs and the grappling third occurs does not hold if the canonicness does not occur. sent2: either the tympanoplasty happens or the karate happens or both. sent3: the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs and/or the grappling third happens. sent4: that the admiralty does not occur but the postictalness happens is not wrong. sent5: the grappling Togaviridae happens. sent6: that the grappling Missourian and/or the reception occurs leads to that the say-so does not occur. sent7: if the fact that the premeditating happens is not incorrect that the fairing and/or the non-canonicness happens does not hold. sent8: if the Brazilian does not occur then the avowing blastoma and/or the topologicalness happens. sent9: the avowing Baldwin does not occur. sent10: the high-energiness happens and/or the lionizing hansom happens. sent11: if the Brazilian happens the topologicalness does not occur and the avowing blastoma does not occur. sent12: the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs. sent13: the chirrup does not occur if the existentialness occurs but the grappling Missourian does not occur. sent14: if the chirrup does not occur the transmission does not occur or the withdrawal does not occur or both. sent15: if that the withdrawal does not occur and the chirrup does not occur does not hold the withdrawal happens. sent16: if that the fair occurs or the canonicness does not occur or both is not correct then the fact that the impingement does not occur is right. sent17: that the withdrawal occurs causes that the Brazilianness occurs. sent18: the fact that the withdrawal does not occur and the chirrup does not occur is not true if the transmission occurs. sent19: the avowing Baldwin leads to that not the vomit but the unalikeness happens. sent20: the transmission is caused by that the non-existentialness and the grappling Missourian occurs. sent21: the non-topologicalness yields that both the premeditating and the non-canonicness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs and/or the grappling third happens.

the fairness does not occur if the impingement occurs and/or the grappling third happens.

if that the withdrawal does not occur and the chirrup does not occur does not hold the withdrawal happens.

the compartmentalization does not occur.

sent1: if the depiction and/or the lionizing crossbill occurs the compartmentalization does not occur. sent2: the Moldovanness happens. sent3: the fact that the avowing horseshoe does not occur hold. sent4: the depiction occurs. sent5: the jigging occurs. sent6: the past does not occur. sent7: the duet happens or the italicness happens or both. sent8: either that the grappling trip happens or the evading or both prevents the channelizing. sent9: the sanction does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {HN} sent3: ¬{GJ} sent4: {A} sent5: {IE} sent6: ¬{IS} sent7: ({GT} v {BI}) sent8: ({AL} v {FD}) -> ¬{BM} sent9: ¬{CO}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the compartmentalization does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the depiction and/or the lionizing crossbill occurs the compartmentalization does not occur. sent2: the Moldovanness happens. sent3: the fact that the avowing horseshoe does not occur hold. sent4: the depiction occurs. sent5: the jigging occurs. sent6: the past does not occur. sent7: the duet happens or the italicness happens or both. sent8: either that the grappling trip happens or the evading or both prevents the channelizing. sent9: the sanction does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: either the depiction happens or the lionizing crossbill occurs or both.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the depiction occurs.

the depiction occurs.

if the depiction and/or the lionizing crossbill occurs the compartmentalization does not occur.

the avowing grinder occurs.

sent1: the disclosure occurs. sent2: the bosom does not occur. sent3: the excitation occurs. sent4: the neuroticness does not occur. sent5: the grappling sacrificer does not occur if the regulating does not occur. sent6: the lionizing determiner happens if the grappling messuage happens. sent7: the gargle does not occur. sent8: the gargle happens if that the avowing methyltestosterone does not occur and the spitball occurs is false. sent9: the guggling carboy does not occur. sent10: if that the terrorization occurs is not wrong then the avowing Joffrey happens. sent11: if that the mid-off but not the connecting occurs is not true the guggling carboy occurs. sent12: the Latinizing does not occur. sent13: the classical does not occur if the avowing Tuchman does not occur. sent14: the guggling messuage does not occur if the gargle does not occur. sent15: if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs. sent16: the refresher occurs. sent17: if that the guggling carboy does not occur is not right then the high-resolutionness happens. sent18: the siderealness does not occur. sent19: that not the avowing methyltestosterone but the spitball happens is false if the high-resolutionness occurs. sent20: the guggling Baptists does not occur. sent21: the indelicateness occurs.

{A}

sent1: {N} sent2: ¬{GH} sent3: {EP} sent4: ¬{ID} sent5: ¬{GN} -> ¬{FR} sent6: {FT} -> {BN} sent7: ¬{C} sent8: ¬(¬{D} & {E}) -> {C} sent9: ¬{G} sent10: {JJ} -> {IH} sent11: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent12: ¬{HO} sent13: ¬{GE} -> ¬{AT} sent14: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent15: {A} -> {B} sent16: {AO} sent17: {G} -> {F} sent18: ¬{GU} sent19: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent20: ¬{EL} sent21: {JI}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the avowing grinder happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the avowing grinder occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the disclosure occurs. sent2: the bosom does not occur. sent3: the excitation occurs. sent4: the neuroticness does not occur. sent5: the grappling sacrificer does not occur if the regulating does not occur. sent6: the lionizing determiner happens if the grappling messuage happens. sent7: the gargle does not occur. sent8: the gargle happens if that the avowing methyltestosterone does not occur and the spitball occurs is false. sent9: the guggling carboy does not occur. sent10: if that the terrorization occurs is not wrong then the avowing Joffrey happens. sent11: if that the mid-off but not the connecting occurs is not true the guggling carboy occurs. sent12: the Latinizing does not occur. sent13: the classical does not occur if the avowing Tuchman does not occur. sent14: the guggling messuage does not occur if the gargle does not occur. sent15: if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs. sent16: the refresher occurs. sent17: if that the guggling carboy does not occur is not right then the high-resolutionness happens. sent18: the siderealness does not occur. sent19: that not the avowing methyltestosterone but the spitball happens is false if the high-resolutionness occurs. sent20: the guggling Baptists does not occur. sent21: the indelicateness occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the avowing grinder occurs.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the guggling messuage happens.; sent14 & sent7 -> int2: the guggling messuage does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs.

The messuage occurs if the avowing grinder happens.

the guggling messuage does not occur if the gargle does not occur.

the avowing grinder occurs.

sent1: the disclosure occurs. sent2: the bosom does not occur. sent3: the excitation occurs. sent4: the neuroticness does not occur. sent5: the grappling sacrificer does not occur if the regulating does not occur. sent6: the lionizing determiner happens if the grappling messuage happens. sent7: the gargle does not occur. sent8: the gargle happens if that the avowing methyltestosterone does not occur and the spitball occurs is false. sent9: the guggling carboy does not occur. sent10: if that the terrorization occurs is not wrong then the avowing Joffrey happens. sent11: if that the mid-off but not the connecting occurs is not true the guggling carboy occurs. sent12: the Latinizing does not occur. sent13: the classical does not occur if the avowing Tuchman does not occur. sent14: the guggling messuage does not occur if the gargle does not occur. sent15: if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs. sent16: the refresher occurs. sent17: if that the guggling carboy does not occur is not right then the high-resolutionness happens. sent18: the siderealness does not occur. sent19: that not the avowing methyltestosterone but the spitball happens is false if the high-resolutionness occurs. sent20: the guggling Baptists does not occur. sent21: the indelicateness occurs.

{A}

sent1: {N} sent2: ¬{GH} sent3: {EP} sent4: ¬{ID} sent5: ¬{GN} -> ¬{FR} sent6: {FT} -> {BN} sent7: ¬{C} sent8: ¬(¬{D} & {E}) -> {C} sent9: ¬{G} sent10: {JJ} -> {IH} sent11: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent12: ¬{HO} sent13: ¬{GE} -> ¬{AT} sent14: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent15: {A} -> {B} sent16: {AO} sent17: {G} -> {F} sent18: ¬{GU} sent19: {F} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) sent20: ¬{EL} sent21: {JI}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the avowing grinder happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the avowing grinder occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the disclosure occurs. sent2: the bosom does not occur. sent3: the excitation occurs. sent4: the neuroticness does not occur. sent5: the grappling sacrificer does not occur if the regulating does not occur. sent6: the lionizing determiner happens if the grappling messuage happens. sent7: the gargle does not occur. sent8: the gargle happens if that the avowing methyltestosterone does not occur and the spitball occurs is false. sent9: the guggling carboy does not occur. sent10: if that the terrorization occurs is not wrong then the avowing Joffrey happens. sent11: if that the mid-off but not the connecting occurs is not true the guggling carboy occurs. sent12: the Latinizing does not occur. sent13: the classical does not occur if the avowing Tuchman does not occur. sent14: the guggling messuage does not occur if the gargle does not occur. sent15: if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs. sent16: the refresher occurs. sent17: if that the guggling carboy does not occur is not right then the high-resolutionness happens. sent18: the siderealness does not occur. sent19: that not the avowing methyltestosterone but the spitball happens is false if the high-resolutionness occurs. sent20: the guggling Baptists does not occur. sent21: the indelicateness occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the avowing grinder occurs.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the guggling messuage happens.; sent14 & sent7 -> int2: the guggling messuage does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the avowing grinder happens then the guggling messuage occurs.

Guggling messuage occurs if the avowing grinder happens.

the gargle does not occur.

the fact that the grinning happens hold.

sent1: the fact that the starlight does not occur hold if the fact that the fact that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the starlight happens if the grinning occurs. sent3: that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the grinning happens hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the starlight does not occur hold if the fact that the fact that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the starlight happens if the grinning occurs. sent3: that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the grinning happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the starlight happens.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: the starlight does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the starlight happens if the grinning occurs.

If the grinning occurs, the starlight will happen.

the fact that the starlight does not occur hold if the fact that the fact that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect hold.

the fact that the grinning happens hold.

sent1: the fact that the starlight does not occur hold if the fact that the fact that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the starlight happens if the grinning occurs. sent3: that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect.

{A}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the grinning happens hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the starlight does not occur hold if the fact that the fact that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the starlight happens if the grinning occurs. sent3: that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the grinning happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the starlight happens.; sent1 & sent3 -> int2: the starlight does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the starlight happens if the grinning occurs.

If the grinning happens, the starlight will happen.

that the MRI does not occur and the avowing foxhole does not occur is incorrect.

the larceny does not occur.

sent1: the unreasonableness happens if the hemisphericness happens. sent2: that the unreasonableness happens or the sensing occurs or both prevents that the larceny occurs. sent3: the fact that that the squatting does not occur and the rhizotomy does not occur is false is correct. sent4: if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens. sent5: that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is not correct.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the larceny does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the unreasonableness happens if the hemisphericness happens. sent2: that the unreasonableness happens or the sensing occurs or both prevents that the larceny occurs. sent3: the fact that that the squatting does not occur and the rhizotomy does not occur is false is correct. sent4: if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens. sent5: that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the unreasonableness occurs is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: the unreasonableness happens and/or the sensing occurs.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens.

The unreasonableness happens if the non-bibliomaniacalness and non-hemisphericness happens.

that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is not correct.

the larceny does not occur.

sent1: the unreasonableness happens if the hemisphericness happens. sent2: that the unreasonableness happens or the sensing occurs or both prevents that the larceny occurs. sent3: the fact that that the squatting does not occur and the rhizotomy does not occur is false is correct. sent4: if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens. sent5: that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is not correct.

¬{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the larceny does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the unreasonableness happens if the hemisphericness happens. sent2: that the unreasonableness happens or the sensing occurs or both prevents that the larceny occurs. sent3: the fact that that the squatting does not occur and the rhizotomy does not occur is false is correct. sent4: if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens. sent5: that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the unreasonableness occurs is not incorrect.; int1 -> int2: the unreasonableness happens and/or the sensing occurs.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens is wrong the unreasonableness happens.

The unreasonableness happens if the non-bibliomaniacalness and the non-hemisphericness happens.

that the unreasonableness happens or the sensing occurs or both prevents that the larceny occurs.

the fulminate does not occur.

sent1: the avowing Adenium occurs and the combat occurs. sent2: the backgammon does not occur. sent3: that the archaeologicalness and the occupying happens leads to that the fulminate does not occur. sent4: the environmentalism does not occur. sent5: that the bridling does not occur is true. sent6: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent7: the clericalness occurs. sent8: the occupying happens. sent9: the RF happens. sent10: the archaeologicalness happens. sent11: the fact that the occupying does not occur if that the non-urogenitalness and the non-solarness happens is not right is not false. sent12: that the occupying does not occur results in that the fulminating and the archaeologicalness happens. sent13: the modalness occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: ({FB} & {IT}) sent2: ¬{G} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{HC} sent5: ¬{IU} sent6: ¬{CT} sent7: {HL} sent8: {B} sent9: {DR} sent10: {A} sent11: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent13: {IS}

PROVED

PROVED

the fulminate happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fulminate does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the avowing Adenium occurs and the combat occurs. sent2: the backgammon does not occur. sent3: that the archaeologicalness and the occupying happens leads to that the fulminate does not occur. sent4: the environmentalism does not occur. sent5: that the bridling does not occur is true. sent6: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent7: the clericalness occurs. sent8: the occupying happens. sent9: the RF happens. sent10: the archaeologicalness happens. sent11: the fact that the occupying does not occur if that the non-urogenitalness and the non-solarness happens is not right is not false. sent12: that the occupying does not occur results in that the fulminating and the archaeologicalness happens. sent13: the modalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the archaeologicalness and the occupying occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the archaeologicalness happens.

The archaeologicalness happens.

the occupying happens.

the fulminate does not occur.

sent1: the avowing Adenium occurs and the combat occurs. sent2: the backgammon does not occur. sent3: that the archaeologicalness and the occupying happens leads to that the fulminate does not occur. sent4: the environmentalism does not occur. sent5: that the bridling does not occur is true. sent6: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent7: the clericalness occurs. sent8: the occupying happens. sent9: the RF happens. sent10: the archaeologicalness happens. sent11: the fact that the occupying does not occur if that the non-urogenitalness and the non-solarness happens is not right is not false. sent12: that the occupying does not occur results in that the fulminating and the archaeologicalness happens. sent13: the modalness occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: ({FB} & {IT}) sent2: ¬{G} sent3: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{HC} sent5: ¬{IU} sent6: ¬{CT} sent7: {HL} sent8: {B} sent9: {DR} sent10: {A} sent11: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent13: {IS}

PROVED

PROVED

the fulminate happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fulminate does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the avowing Adenium occurs and the combat occurs. sent2: the backgammon does not occur. sent3: that the archaeologicalness and the occupying happens leads to that the fulminate does not occur. sent4: the environmentalism does not occur. sent5: that the bridling does not occur is true. sent6: the dolomiticness does not occur. sent7: the clericalness occurs. sent8: the occupying happens. sent9: the RF happens. sent10: the archaeologicalness happens. sent11: the fact that the occupying does not occur if that the non-urogenitalness and the non-solarness happens is not right is not false. sent12: that the occupying does not occur results in that the fulminating and the archaeologicalness happens. sent13: the modalness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent8 -> int1: the archaeologicalness and the occupying occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the archaeologicalness happens.

The archaeology happens.

that the archaeologicalness and the occupying happens leads to that the fulminate does not occur.

that the hit is a accountantship and is not unilateral does not hold.

sent1: something is not a ex-husband but it is a kind of a nibbed if it does not grapple Lagostomus. sent2: something that is intramuscular is not unilateral. sent3: the hit is not unilateral if it is intramuscular. sent4: the wheedler is a erasure. sent5: something is a accountantship but it is not unilateral if it is intramuscular. sent6: that the wheedler does grapple Lagostomus and does not grapple shroud is not true if that it lionizes wheedler is not wrong. sent7: if something is a nibbed that it is a kind of non-intramuscular thing that is representational is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the roadrunner is not intramuscular but it is representational is incorrect the pompano is not a accountantship. sent9: if the wheedler is a erasure then it lionizes wheedler. sent10: the fact that the hit is not unilateral is not incorrect. sent11: the roadrunner is a nibbed if the shroud is not a ex-husband and is a nibbed. sent12: the hit is both intramuscular and representational.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the hit is both a accountantship and not unilateral does not hold.

¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the hit is a accountantship and is not unilateral does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a ex-husband but it is a kind of a nibbed if it does not grapple Lagostomus. sent2: something that is intramuscular is not unilateral. sent3: the hit is not unilateral if it is intramuscular. sent4: the wheedler is a erasure. sent5: something is a accountantship but it is not unilateral if it is intramuscular. sent6: that the wheedler does grapple Lagostomus and does not grapple shroud is not true if that it lionizes wheedler is not wrong. sent7: if something is a nibbed that it is a kind of non-intramuscular thing that is representational is incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the roadrunner is not intramuscular but it is representational is incorrect the pompano is not a accountantship. sent9: if the wheedler is a erasure then it lionizes wheedler. sent10: the fact that the hit is not unilateral is not incorrect. sent11: the roadrunner is a nibbed if the shroud is not a ex-husband and is a nibbed. sent12: the hit is both intramuscular and representational. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the hit is intramuscular then it is a kind of a accountantship and it is not unilateral.; sent12 -> int2: the hit is intramuscular.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is a accountantship but it is not unilateral if it is intramuscular.

something is a accountantship but it is not unilateral if it is intramuscular.

the hit is both intramuscular and representational.

that the Mennonite is not an efficiency hold.

sent1: if something does avow gloxinia then it does not avow beadle. sent2: that the Mennonite is not glacial and is an efficiency is incorrect. sent3: if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible. sent4: if the illuminant is not nonwashable it is not a kind of a reversible. sent5: the fact that if the illuminant is not an inventory then the Mennonite is not a reversible hold. sent6: something is informational thing that is a kind of a reversible if it does not avow beadle. sent7: everything is not informational. sent8: that the illuminant is not glacial but it is a kind of an inventory is not true. sent9: if the receptor is a kind of a reversible or it is not informational or both then it is a reversible. sent10: if the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible then it is not an efficiency.

¬{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Mennonite is an efficiency.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Mennonite is not an efficiency hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does avow gloxinia then it does not avow beadle. sent2: that the Mennonite is not glacial and is an efficiency is incorrect. sent3: if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible. sent4: if the illuminant is not nonwashable it is not a kind of a reversible. sent5: the fact that if the illuminant is not an inventory then the Mennonite is not a reversible hold. sent6: something is informational thing that is a kind of a reversible if it does not avow beadle. sent7: everything is not informational. sent8: that the illuminant is not glacial but it is a kind of an inventory is not true. sent9: if the receptor is a kind of a reversible or it is not informational or both then it is a reversible. sent10: if the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible then it is not an efficiency. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible.

The Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible if the illuminant is false and the inventory is not.

that the illuminant is not glacial but it is a kind of an inventory is not true.

that the Mennonite is not an efficiency hold.

sent1: if something does avow gloxinia then it does not avow beadle. sent2: that the Mennonite is not glacial and is an efficiency is incorrect. sent3: if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible. sent4: if the illuminant is not nonwashable it is not a kind of a reversible. sent5: the fact that if the illuminant is not an inventory then the Mennonite is not a reversible hold. sent6: something is informational thing that is a kind of a reversible if it does not avow beadle. sent7: everything is not informational. sent8: that the illuminant is not glacial but it is a kind of an inventory is not true. sent9: if the receptor is a kind of a reversible or it is not informational or both then it is a reversible. sent10: if the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible then it is not an efficiency.

¬{A}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Mennonite is an efficiency.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Mennonite is not an efficiency hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does avow gloxinia then it does not avow beadle. sent2: that the Mennonite is not glacial and is an efficiency is incorrect. sent3: if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible. sent4: if the illuminant is not nonwashable it is not a kind of a reversible. sent5: the fact that if the illuminant is not an inventory then the Mennonite is not a reversible hold. sent6: something is informational thing that is a kind of a reversible if it does not avow beadle. sent7: everything is not informational. sent8: that the illuminant is not glacial but it is a kind of an inventory is not true. sent9: if the receptor is a kind of a reversible or it is not informational or both then it is a reversible. sent10: if the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible then it is not an efficiency. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the illuminant is both not glacial and an inventory is false then the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible.

The Mennonite is not a kind of reversible if the illuminant is false and the inventory is not.

if the Mennonite is not a kind of a reversible then it is not an efficiency.

the fact that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not right.

sent1: the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate. sent2: the fact that the commissary is a Baikal but it is not joyous is wrong. sent3: that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not correct if the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate.

¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate. sent2: the fact that the commissary is a Baikal but it is not joyous is wrong. sent3: that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not correct if the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not correct if the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate.

that the commissary is both not a Baikal and not joyous is not correct if the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate.

the bilirubin is not a polyphosphate.

the guggling plow happens.

sent1: if the turn occurs that the non-unopposableness and/or the guggling Sarcochilus occurs is false. sent2: the atheisticness happens. sent3: that the mapping does not occur results in that the guggling plow does not occur. sent4: if the aposiopeticness does not occur both the guggling plow and the non-atheisticness happens. sent5: the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs. sent6: both the temporizing and the turn occurs if the guggling chrome does not occur. sent7: the guggling plow does not occur if that the emirate does not occur and the mapping happens is wrong. sent8: that the incommutableness does not occur and the counterrevolutionariness happens is not right. sent9: the absence does not occur. sent10: that the grappling stepfather does not occur is not false if the fact that either the opposableness or the guggling Sarcochilus or both happens is wrong. sent11: if the grappling stepfather does not occur the non-aposiopeticness and the avowing weeper occurs.

{B}

sent1: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} v {F}) sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent5: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬(¬{FE} & {IJ}) sent9: ¬{HL} sent10: ¬(¬{G} v {F}) -> ¬{E} sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & {D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the guggling plow occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the guggling plow happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the turn occurs that the non-unopposableness and/or the guggling Sarcochilus occurs is false. sent2: the atheisticness happens. sent3: that the mapping does not occur results in that the guggling plow does not occur. sent4: if the aposiopeticness does not occur both the guggling plow and the non-atheisticness happens. sent5: the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs. sent6: both the temporizing and the turn occurs if the guggling chrome does not occur. sent7: the guggling plow does not occur if that the emirate does not occur and the mapping happens is wrong. sent8: that the incommutableness does not occur and the counterrevolutionariness happens is not right. sent9: the absence does not occur. sent10: that the grappling stepfather does not occur is not false if the fact that either the opposableness or the guggling Sarcochilus or both happens is wrong. sent11: if the grappling stepfather does not occur the non-aposiopeticness and the avowing weeper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that not the emirate but the mapping occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs.

If the atheisticness occurs, the fact that the emirate does not occur is not right.

the atheisticness happens.

the guggling plow happens.

sent1: if the turn occurs that the non-unopposableness and/or the guggling Sarcochilus occurs is false. sent2: the atheisticness happens. sent3: that the mapping does not occur results in that the guggling plow does not occur. sent4: if the aposiopeticness does not occur both the guggling plow and the non-atheisticness happens. sent5: the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs. sent6: both the temporizing and the turn occurs if the guggling chrome does not occur. sent7: the guggling plow does not occur if that the emirate does not occur and the mapping happens is wrong. sent8: that the incommutableness does not occur and the counterrevolutionariness happens is not right. sent9: the absence does not occur. sent10: that the grappling stepfather does not occur is not false if the fact that either the opposableness or the guggling Sarcochilus or both happens is wrong. sent11: if the grappling stepfather does not occur the non-aposiopeticness and the avowing weeper occurs.

{B}

sent1: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} v {F}) sent2: {A} sent3: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent5: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬(¬{FE} & {IJ}) sent9: ¬{HL} sent10: ¬(¬{G} v {F}) -> ¬{E} sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & {D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the guggling plow occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the guggling plow happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the turn occurs that the non-unopposableness and/or the guggling Sarcochilus occurs is false. sent2: the atheisticness happens. sent3: that the mapping does not occur results in that the guggling plow does not occur. sent4: if the aposiopeticness does not occur both the guggling plow and the non-atheisticness happens. sent5: the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs. sent6: both the temporizing and the turn occurs if the guggling chrome does not occur. sent7: the guggling plow does not occur if that the emirate does not occur and the mapping happens is wrong. sent8: that the incommutableness does not occur and the counterrevolutionariness happens is not right. sent9: the absence does not occur. sent10: that the grappling stepfather does not occur is not false if the fact that either the opposableness or the guggling Sarcochilus or both happens is wrong. sent11: if the grappling stepfather does not occur the non-aposiopeticness and the avowing weeper occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that not the emirate but the mapping occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the emirate does not occur and the mapping occurs is not right if the atheisticness occurs.

If the atheisticness occurs, then the fact that the emirate does not occur is not right.

the guggling plow does not occur if that the emirate does not occur and the mapping happens is wrong.

that the non-resistant is both not non-Kazakhstani and careful is not right.

sent1: the non-resistant is careful if it does not lionize announcer. sent2: if the schlock does not grapple molter but it is intrastate the fact that the Charlotte is not intrastate hold. sent3: if the Charlotte is not intrastate then it does not lionize announcer and yells. sent4: the non-resistant does not lionize announcer. sent5: The announcer does not lionize non-resistant. sent6: if the non-resistant does not lionize announcer then it is a Kazakhstani and it is careful.

¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the non-resistant is a Kazakhstani that is careful is not true.

¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the non-resistant is both not non-Kazakhstani and careful is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-resistant is careful if it does not lionize announcer. sent2: if the schlock does not grapple molter but it is intrastate the fact that the Charlotte is not intrastate hold. sent3: if the Charlotte is not intrastate then it does not lionize announcer and yells. sent4: the non-resistant does not lionize announcer. sent5: The announcer does not lionize non-resistant. sent6: if the non-resistant does not lionize announcer then it is a Kazakhstani and it is careful. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the non-resistant does not lionize announcer then it is a Kazakhstani and it is careful.

if the non-resistant does not lionize announcer then it is a Kazakhstani and it is careful.

the non-resistant does not lionize announcer.

the fact that something is both infinitival and not a harlequin-snake is false.

sent1: if something is runic then it is not a harlequin-snake. sent2: there is something such that it grapples secessionism. sent3: the halter is infinitival. sent4: if something is not a harlequin-snake it is tricentenary and it is infinitival. sent5: if there exists something such that it is tricentenary then the halter is infinitival but not a harlequin-snake. sent6: there is something such that it lionizes cuneiform and is christian. sent7: there exists something such that it is tricentenary.

¬((Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

something is a kind of a pseudoscorpion.

(Ex): {BJ}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is both infinitival and not a harlequin-snake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is runic then it is not a harlequin-snake. sent2: there is something such that it grapples secessionism. sent3: the halter is infinitival. sent4: if something is not a harlequin-snake it is tricentenary and it is infinitival. sent5: if there exists something such that it is tricentenary then the halter is infinitival but not a harlequin-snake. sent6: there is something such that it lionizes cuneiform and is christian. sent7: there exists something such that it is tricentenary. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the halter is a kind of infinitival thing that is not a harlequin-snake.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is tricentenary.

there exists something such that it is tricentenary.

if there exists something such that it is tricentenary then the halter is infinitival but not a harlequin-snake.

the spellbinder is a kind of a potter.

sent1: the molter is a Plesianthropus and it is inshore if it is not a cipher. sent2: the zoologist is a radiophotograph but it does not entail if the GABA is not a Seiurus. sent3: if something that is not phonemic is a radiophotograph it does potter. sent4: the molter is not a cipher. sent5: the shaker is a kind of a quarters. sent6: something is a kind of a radiophotograph if the fact that it is phonemic hold. sent7: the spellbinder grapples cottontail. sent8: the fact that the zoologist is not phonemic is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Plesianthropus is not true. sent9: the spellbinder is phonemic if it is a hare. sent10: something that is not phonemic or is not a potter or both is not a potter. sent11: if something is a kind of a radiophotograph then it does potter. sent12: the spellbinder is an entail.

{B}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the zoologist does potter.

{B}{gf}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the spellbinder is a kind of a potter. ; $context$ = sent1: the molter is a Plesianthropus and it is inshore if it is not a cipher. sent2: the zoologist is a radiophotograph but it does not entail if the GABA is not a Seiurus. sent3: if something that is not phonemic is a radiophotograph it does potter. sent4: the molter is not a cipher. sent5: the shaker is a kind of a quarters. sent6: something is a kind of a radiophotograph if the fact that it is phonemic hold. sent7: the spellbinder grapples cottontail. sent8: the fact that the zoologist is not phonemic is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Plesianthropus is not true. sent9: the spellbinder is phonemic if it is a hare. sent10: something that is not phonemic or is not a potter or both is not a potter. sent11: if something is a kind of a radiophotograph then it does potter. sent12: the spellbinder is an entail. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is a kind of a radiophotograph if the fact that it is phonemic hold.

something is a kind of a radiophotograph if the fact that it is phonemic hold.

if something is a kind of a radiophotograph then it does potter.

the fact that the Afro-wig is not upstream is right.

sent1: something is non-upstream if it is not a pteridophyte. sent2: the stibnite is not antimagnetic. sent3: the fact that the stibnite is antimagnetic and it is a pteridophyte does not hold. sent4: the Afro-wig is not Frankish. sent5: the stibnite does not garner. sent6: if the fact that the Afro-wig is antimagnetic and it is a kind of a pteridophyte does not hold it is not upstream. sent7: that the Afro-wig garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold if the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent8: if the stibnite does not garner it is not anemometric. sent9: the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent10: if that something is a predator and it is feminist is not true that it does not lionize stibnite is not incorrect. sent11: the stibnite is not a kind of a uniformity. sent12: if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{a} sent3: ¬({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: ¬{HO}{aa} sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: ¬({AB}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{T}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({DB}x & {IS}x) -> ¬{FU}x sent11: ¬{JI}{a} sent12: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Afro-wig is not upstream is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is non-upstream if it is not a pteridophyte. sent2: the stibnite is not antimagnetic. sent3: the fact that the stibnite is antimagnetic and it is a pteridophyte does not hold. sent4: the Afro-wig is not Frankish. sent5: the stibnite does not garner. sent6: if the fact that the Afro-wig is antimagnetic and it is a kind of a pteridophyte does not hold it is not upstream. sent7: that the Afro-wig garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold if the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent8: if the stibnite does not garner it is not anemometric. sent9: the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent10: if that something is a predator and it is feminist is not true that it does not lionize stibnite is not incorrect. sent11: the stibnite is not a kind of a uniformity. sent12: if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the fact that the Afro-wig garners and is antimagnetic is true is false then it is not upstream.; sent7 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the Afro-wig does garner and is antimagnetic is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream.

It is not upstream if something garners and it is antimagnetic.

that the Afro-wig garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold if the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte.

the fact that the Afro-wig is not upstream is right.

sent1: something is non-upstream if it is not a pteridophyte. sent2: the stibnite is not antimagnetic. sent3: the fact that the stibnite is antimagnetic and it is a pteridophyte does not hold. sent4: the Afro-wig is not Frankish. sent5: the stibnite does not garner. sent6: if the fact that the Afro-wig is antimagnetic and it is a kind of a pteridophyte does not hold it is not upstream. sent7: that the Afro-wig garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold if the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent8: if the stibnite does not garner it is not anemometric. sent9: the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent10: if that something is a predator and it is feminist is not true that it does not lionize stibnite is not incorrect. sent11: the stibnite is not a kind of a uniformity. sent12: if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{a} sent3: ¬({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) sent4: ¬{HO}{aa} sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: ¬({AB}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent8: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{T}{a} sent9: ¬{A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({DB}x & {IS}x) -> ¬{FU}x sent11: ¬{JI}{a} sent12: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Afro-wig is not upstream is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is non-upstream if it is not a pteridophyte. sent2: the stibnite is not antimagnetic. sent3: the fact that the stibnite is antimagnetic and it is a pteridophyte does not hold. sent4: the Afro-wig is not Frankish. sent5: the stibnite does not garner. sent6: if the fact that the Afro-wig is antimagnetic and it is a kind of a pteridophyte does not hold it is not upstream. sent7: that the Afro-wig garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold if the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent8: if the stibnite does not garner it is not anemometric. sent9: the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte. sent10: if that something is a predator and it is feminist is not true that it does not lionize stibnite is not incorrect. sent11: the stibnite is not a kind of a uniformity. sent12: if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the fact that the Afro-wig garners and is antimagnetic is true is false then it is not upstream.; sent7 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the Afro-wig does garner and is antimagnetic is not right.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something garners and it is antimagnetic does not hold then it is not upstream.

If something garners and it is antimagnetic, then it is not upstream.

the stibnite is not a kind of a pteridophyte.

the shimmy is not corneal.

sent1: the shawny is a traveled. sent2: that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct. sent3: the Singer is a baron but it is not corneal. sent4: the shimmy is a Cassiope. sent5: the shimmy is a kind of a circumstances if it is areal. sent6: if something is regenerate it is corneal. sent7: the shimmy is unstuck. sent8: if the shimmy is both a skinny-dip and not corneal it is toneless. sent9: the shimmy is both a traveled and not impassable.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: {AA}{bi} sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: ({II}{de} & ¬{A}{de}) sent4: {FE}{a} sent5: {BI}{a} -> {AH}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent7: {BO}{a} sent8: ({IN}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {HK}{a} sent9: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the shimmy is not corneal. ; $context$ = sent1: the shawny is a traveled. sent2: that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct. sent3: the Singer is a baron but it is not corneal. sent4: the shimmy is a Cassiope. sent5: the shimmy is a kind of a circumstances if it is areal. sent6: if something is regenerate it is corneal. sent7: the shimmy is unstuck. sent8: if the shimmy is both a skinny-dip and not corneal it is toneless. sent9: the shimmy is both a traveled and not impassable. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent9 -> int1: the shimmy is regenerate.; sent6 -> int2: the shimmy is corneal if it regenerates.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct.

If it is a traveled and passable shimmy, it is not false.

the shimmy is both a traveled and not impassable.

the shimmy is not corneal.

sent1: the shawny is a traveled. sent2: that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct. sent3: the Singer is a baron but it is not corneal. sent4: the shimmy is a Cassiope. sent5: the shimmy is a kind of a circumstances if it is areal. sent6: if something is regenerate it is corneal. sent7: the shimmy is unstuck. sent8: if the shimmy is both a skinny-dip and not corneal it is toneless. sent9: the shimmy is both a traveled and not impassable.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: {AA}{bi} sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent3: ({II}{de} & ¬{A}{de}) sent4: {FE}{a} sent5: {BI}{a} -> {AH}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent7: {BO}{a} sent8: ({IN}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {HK}{a} sent9: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the shimmy is not corneal. ; $context$ = sent1: the shawny is a traveled. sent2: that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct. sent3: the Singer is a baron but it is not corneal. sent4: the shimmy is a Cassiope. sent5: the shimmy is a kind of a circumstances if it is areal. sent6: if something is regenerate it is corneal. sent7: the shimmy is unstuck. sent8: if the shimmy is both a skinny-dip and not corneal it is toneless. sent9: the shimmy is both a traveled and not impassable. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent9 -> int1: the shimmy is regenerate.; sent6 -> int2: the shimmy is corneal if it regenerates.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the shimmy regenerates is not false if that it is a traveled and passable is correct.

If it's a traveled and passable shimmy, it's not false.

if something is regenerate it is corneal.

the junction is not non-noxious.

sent1: that the junction is not a peasanthood and does attack ditch is wrong. sent2: the pewee is not noxious. sent3: the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct. sent4: if that something is proximal but it does not attack ditch is right it does not overtake terce. sent5: the monk is not noxious. sent6: if that the pewee is not a peasanthood is right then the fact that the junction is a TURP hold. sent7: the pewee is not a peasanthood. sent8: something is proximal thing that does not attack ditch if it does overtake hysterocatalepsy. sent9: the junction is a TURP. sent10: the pewee does not attack monk but it is a peasanthood if the junction is not a kind of a TURP. sent11: if that the junction is not a peasanthood and attacks ditch is wrong then the fact that it is a peasanthood hold. sent12: the junction is not a osmoreceptor but it is a peasanthood. sent13: the fact that the pewee does not attack monk if the pewee is not noxious but it is a peasanthood is not false. sent14: that the ditch is not a peasanthood is not wrong. sent15: the pewee is not a peasanthood if it does not attack monk and is noxious. sent16: if the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP it is non-noxious.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: ¬{B}{ek} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: {AB}{b} sent10: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent12: (¬{IT}{b} & {A}{b}) sent13: (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{ip} sent15: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pewee does not attack monk.

¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the junction is not non-noxious. ; $context$ = sent1: that the junction is not a peasanthood and does attack ditch is wrong. sent2: the pewee is not noxious. sent3: the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct. sent4: if that something is proximal but it does not attack ditch is right it does not overtake terce. sent5: the monk is not noxious. sent6: if that the pewee is not a peasanthood is right then the fact that the junction is a TURP hold. sent7: the pewee is not a peasanthood. sent8: something is proximal thing that does not attack ditch if it does overtake hysterocatalepsy. sent9: the junction is a TURP. sent10: the pewee does not attack monk but it is a peasanthood if the junction is not a kind of a TURP. sent11: if that the junction is not a peasanthood and attacks ditch is wrong then the fact that it is a peasanthood hold. sent12: the junction is not a osmoreceptor but it is a peasanthood. sent13: the fact that the pewee does not attack monk if the pewee is not noxious but it is a peasanthood is not false. sent14: that the ditch is not a peasanthood is not wrong. sent15: the pewee is not a peasanthood if it does not attack monk and is noxious. sent16: if the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP it is non-noxious. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the junction does not attack monk but it is a kind of a TURP.; int1 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct.

The junction is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasant.

the pewee is not a peasanthood.

the junction is not non-noxious.

sent1: that the junction is not a peasanthood and does attack ditch is wrong. sent2: the pewee is not noxious. sent3: the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct. sent4: if that something is proximal but it does not attack ditch is right it does not overtake terce. sent5: the monk is not noxious. sent6: if that the pewee is not a peasanthood is right then the fact that the junction is a TURP hold. sent7: the pewee is not a peasanthood. sent8: something is proximal thing that does not attack ditch if it does overtake hysterocatalepsy. sent9: the junction is a TURP. sent10: the pewee does not attack monk but it is a peasanthood if the junction is not a kind of a TURP. sent11: if that the junction is not a peasanthood and attacks ditch is wrong then the fact that it is a peasanthood hold. sent12: the junction is not a osmoreceptor but it is a peasanthood. sent13: the fact that the pewee does not attack monk if the pewee is not noxious but it is a peasanthood is not false. sent14: that the ditch is not a peasanthood is not wrong. sent15: the pewee is not a peasanthood if it does not attack monk and is noxious. sent16: if the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP it is non-noxious.

{B}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent4: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: ¬{B}{ek} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: {AB}{b} sent10: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent12: (¬{IT}{b} & {A}{b}) sent13: (¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{ip} sent15: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent16: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pewee does not attack monk.

¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the junction is not non-noxious. ; $context$ = sent1: that the junction is not a peasanthood and does attack ditch is wrong. sent2: the pewee is not noxious. sent3: the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct. sent4: if that something is proximal but it does not attack ditch is right it does not overtake terce. sent5: the monk is not noxious. sent6: if that the pewee is not a peasanthood is right then the fact that the junction is a TURP hold. sent7: the pewee is not a peasanthood. sent8: something is proximal thing that does not attack ditch if it does overtake hysterocatalepsy. sent9: the junction is a TURP. sent10: the pewee does not attack monk but it is a peasanthood if the junction is not a kind of a TURP. sent11: if that the junction is not a peasanthood and attacks ditch is wrong then the fact that it is a peasanthood hold. sent12: the junction is not a osmoreceptor but it is a peasanthood. sent13: the fact that the pewee does not attack monk if the pewee is not noxious but it is a peasanthood is not false. sent14: that the ditch is not a peasanthood is not wrong. sent15: the pewee is not a peasanthood if it does not attack monk and is noxious. sent16: if the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP it is non-noxious. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent7 -> int1: the junction does not attack monk but it is a kind of a TURP.; int1 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasanthood is correct.

The junction does not attack a monk and is a TURP if the pewee is not a peasant.

if the junction does not attack monk and is a TURP it is non-noxious.

the reshuffle occurs.

sent1: the duodenalness occurs if the fact that both the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens does not hold. sent2: the fact that either the overtaking viverrine does not occur or the overtaking schematization happens or both is not true if the mistrial happens. sent3: the fact that the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens is false. sent4: the surviving occurs if the electromagnetism does not occur. sent5: if the shredding occurs that not the mistrial but the score happens is incorrect. sent6: the duodenalness does not occur if the fact that the overtaking viverrine does not occur and/or the overtaking schematization happens is not right. sent7: the mistrial occurs if that not the mistrial but the scoring happens does not hold. sent8: the tractiveness and the shred occurs if the attacking deployment does not occur.

{A}

sent1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent2: {E} -> ¬(¬{C} v {D}) sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{EQ} -> {EP} sent5: {G} -> ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent6: ¬(¬{C} v {D}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) -> {E} sent8: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the urbanness occurs.

{HI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reshuffle occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the duodenalness occurs if the fact that both the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens does not hold. sent2: the fact that either the overtaking viverrine does not occur or the overtaking schematization happens or both is not true if the mistrial happens. sent3: the fact that the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens is false. sent4: the surviving occurs if the electromagnetism does not occur. sent5: if the shredding occurs that not the mistrial but the score happens is incorrect. sent6: the duodenalness does not occur if the fact that the overtaking viverrine does not occur and/or the overtaking schematization happens is not right. sent7: the mistrial occurs if that not the mistrial but the scoring happens does not hold. sent8: the tractiveness and the shred occurs if the attacking deployment does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the duodenalness occurs if the fact that both the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens does not hold.

the duodenalness occurs if the fact that both the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens does not hold.

the fact that the damaging and the non-allotropicness happens is false.

there exists something such that the fact that it is not daisylike and is counterclockwise is incorrect.

sent1: there is something such that that it is not inconstant and it is continental is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that it is a Arabic. sent3: if there exists something such that it is Arabic the fact that the North is not daisylike but it is counterclockwise does not hold. sent4: that the North does vocalize and it is a arc-boutant is not true. sent5: that the North is daisylike and counterclockwise is not right if something is a Arabic.

(Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{ID}x & {DG}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ¬({AD}{a} & {FE}{a}) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not daisylike and is counterclockwise is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not inconstant and it is continental is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that it is a Arabic. sent3: if there exists something such that it is Arabic the fact that the North is not daisylike but it is counterclockwise does not hold. sent4: that the North does vocalize and it is a arc-boutant is not true. sent5: that the North is daisylike and counterclockwise is not right if something is a Arabic. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the North is non-daisylike and counterclockwise does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Arabic.

there exists something such that it is a Arabic.

if there exists something such that it is Arabic the fact that the North is not daisylike but it is counterclockwise does not hold.

the cellist is a governess and/or it is not syllabic.

sent1: the gentian does not rust. sent2: if the fact that the gentian determines Koran and/or it is a rust is wrong the fleece is not a governess. sent3: if the spicebush is not Stravinskyan that it does not release and does attack diversion is wrong. sent4: the crawlspace is a kind of a rust and/or it is not a submariner. sent5: the fact that the gentian is a rust and/or it is a governess does not hold. sent6: the fact that the colobus is non-volumetric thing that does overtake Oswald is not correct if there exists something such that it does not overtake prostration. sent7: if something does not overtake charlock the fact that it is a kind of a governess and/or is succinic is false. sent8: the fleece does not overtake charlock if it is not antiferromagnetic and it is volumetric. sent9: if the fleece is not a kind of a quiff the colobus is syllabic but not non-antiferromagnetic. sent10: the spicebush is not Stravinskyan. sent11: the cellist determines Koran and/or is not a governess. sent12: the cellist does not overtake prostration. sent13: if something that is syllabic is volumetric then it does not overtake charlock. sent14: everything does not rust. sent15: the fleece is not a kind of a quiff if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a release and it does attack diversion is false. sent16: there is nothing that determines Koran and/or is a rust. sent17: the cellist is syllabic and/or it is not a governess if the fleece is not syllabic. sent18: if the fact that something is non-volumetric thing that overtakes Oswald is false the fact that it is volumetric is not incorrect.

({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the cellist is a kind of a governess and/or it is not syllabic is false.

¬({A}{b} v ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cellist is a governess and/or it is not syllabic. ; $context$ = sent1: the gentian does not rust. sent2: if the fact that the gentian determines Koran and/or it is a rust is wrong the fleece is not a governess. sent3: if the spicebush is not Stravinskyan that it does not release and does attack diversion is wrong. sent4: the crawlspace is a kind of a rust and/or it is not a submariner. sent5: the fact that the gentian is a rust and/or it is a governess does not hold. sent6: the fact that the colobus is non-volumetric thing that does overtake Oswald is not correct if there exists something such that it does not overtake prostration. sent7: if something does not overtake charlock the fact that it is a kind of a governess and/or is succinic is false. sent8: the fleece does not overtake charlock if it is not antiferromagnetic and it is volumetric. sent9: if the fleece is not a kind of a quiff the colobus is syllabic but not non-antiferromagnetic. sent10: the spicebush is not Stravinskyan. sent11: the cellist determines Koran and/or is not a governess. sent12: the cellist does not overtake prostration. sent13: if something that is syllabic is volumetric then it does not overtake charlock. sent14: everything does not rust. sent15: the fleece is not a kind of a quiff if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a release and it does attack diversion is false. sent16: there is nothing that determines Koran and/or is a rust. sent17: the cellist is syllabic and/or it is not a governess if the fleece is not syllabic. sent18: if the fact that something is non-volumetric thing that overtakes Oswald is false the fact that it is volumetric is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is nothing that determines Koran and/or is a rust.

there is nothing that determines Koran and/or is a rust.

if the fact that the gentian determines Koran and/or it is a rust is wrong the fleece is not a governess.

the fact that the poison is an imbalance but it is not a habit is not true.

sent1: the poison is a birdie but it does not transplant. sent2: the Angle is a roof and does not habit if there is something such that it does striate. sent3: the poison is a kind of verbal thing that determines Whitehorse if it is not eusporangiate. sent4: if something is bisectional then the poison is a kind of an imbalance and is not a kind of a habit. sent5: that there exists something such that it is bisectional hold. sent6: the poison is a kind of an imbalance if there are bisectional things. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not non-radiotelephonic and wheaten is not true. sent8: the poison is an imbalance. sent9: something is not bisectional if the fact that that it is not a glycerogelatin and it is bisectional is not incorrect is false. sent10: if something is not wheaten but it is verbal it is not a kind of a clearness. sent11: the fact that something is an imbalance and does not habit is not right if the fact that it is not bisectional is not false. sent12: if the fact that something is not a clearness is not wrong that the fact that it is not a kind of a glycerogelatin and it is bisectional hold does not hold. sent13: the poison is not wheaten if there is something such that the fact that it is radiotelephonic and it is wheaten is false. sent14: the poison is a Realtor and not amoristic. sent15: there is something such that it habits.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: ({CP}{a} & ¬{HH}{a}) sent2: (x): {FP}x -> ({EF}{ih} & ¬{C}{ih}) sent3: ¬{J}{a} -> ({F}{a} & {I}{a}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: (x): (¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {A}x) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent14: ({BP}{a} & ¬{AS}{a}) sent15: (Ex): {C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the poison is a kind of an imbalance that is not a habit does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the poison is an imbalance but it is not a habit is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the poison is a birdie but it does not transplant. sent2: the Angle is a roof and does not habit if there is something such that it does striate. sent3: the poison is a kind of verbal thing that determines Whitehorse if it is not eusporangiate. sent4: if something is bisectional then the poison is a kind of an imbalance and is not a kind of a habit. sent5: that there exists something such that it is bisectional hold. sent6: the poison is a kind of an imbalance if there are bisectional things. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not non-radiotelephonic and wheaten is not true. sent8: the poison is an imbalance. sent9: something is not bisectional if the fact that that it is not a glycerogelatin and it is bisectional is not incorrect is false. sent10: if something is not wheaten but it is verbal it is not a kind of a clearness. sent11: the fact that something is an imbalance and does not habit is not right if the fact that it is not bisectional is not false. sent12: if the fact that something is not a clearness is not wrong that the fact that it is not a kind of a glycerogelatin and it is bisectional hold does not hold. sent13: the poison is not wheaten if there is something such that the fact that it is radiotelephonic and it is wheaten is false. sent14: the poison is a Realtor and not amoristic. sent15: there is something such that it habits. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that it is bisectional hold.

that there exists something such that it is bisectional hold.

if something is bisectional then the poison is a kind of an imbalance and is not a kind of a habit.

the nibbler is a gleam.

sent1: the nibbler is homeopathic. sent2: that the fact that the ironman is not Gallic but it is a settler is wrong is right. sent3: something is not incredible but it is a gleam if it is not meteorologic. sent4: if the cards is not incredible but it is a gleam then the batholith is homeopathic. sent5: if something is outer and is not a kind of a disenchantment it does not attack Balaenopteridae. sent6: if that the casino does bake but it is not meteorologic does not hold then the cards is not meteorologic. sent7: the fact that that something is incredible but it does not gleam is not correct if it is meteorologic is not false. sent8: if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct. sent9: everything is not a porgy. sent10: The Jackson does not overtake nibbler. sent11: the nibbler does not overtake Jackson. sent12: if the polyamide is not a kind of a settler but it is preventive it is a kind of a porgy. sent13: if the polyamide is a kind of a porgy then that the casino bakes but it is not meteorologic is not correct.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the batholith is homeopathic.

{AA}{eu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nibbler is a gleam. ; $context$ = sent1: the nibbler is homeopathic. sent2: that the fact that the ironman is not Gallic but it is a settler is wrong is right. sent3: something is not incredible but it is a gleam if it is not meteorologic. sent4: if the cards is not incredible but it is a gleam then the batholith is homeopathic. sent5: if something is outer and is not a kind of a disenchantment it does not attack Balaenopteridae. sent6: if that the casino does bake but it is not meteorologic does not hold then the cards is not meteorologic. sent7: the fact that that something is incredible but it does not gleam is not correct if it is meteorologic is not false. sent8: if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct. sent9: everything is not a porgy. sent10: The Jackson does not overtake nibbler. sent11: the nibbler does not overtake Jackson. sent12: if the polyamide is not a kind of a settler but it is preventive it is a kind of a porgy. sent13: if the polyamide is a kind of a porgy then that the casino bakes but it is not meteorologic is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the nibbler is not a gleam if it is homeopathic and does not overtake Jackson.; sent1 & sent11 -> int2: the nibbler is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct.

The fact that it is not a gleam is correct.

the nibbler is homeopathic.

the nibbler is a gleam.

sent1: the nibbler is homeopathic. sent2: that the fact that the ironman is not Gallic but it is a settler is wrong is right. sent3: something is not incredible but it is a gleam if it is not meteorologic. sent4: if the cards is not incredible but it is a gleam then the batholith is homeopathic. sent5: if something is outer and is not a kind of a disenchantment it does not attack Balaenopteridae. sent6: if that the casino does bake but it is not meteorologic does not hold then the cards is not meteorologic. sent7: the fact that that something is incredible but it does not gleam is not correct if it is meteorologic is not false. sent8: if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct. sent9: everything is not a porgy. sent10: The Jackson does not overtake nibbler. sent11: the nibbler does not overtake Jackson. sent12: if the polyamide is not a kind of a settler but it is preventive it is a kind of a porgy. sent13: if the polyamide is a kind of a porgy then that the casino bakes but it is not meteorologic is not correct.

{B}{aa}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the batholith is homeopathic.

{AA}{eu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nibbler is a gleam. ; $context$ = sent1: the nibbler is homeopathic. sent2: that the fact that the ironman is not Gallic but it is a settler is wrong is right. sent3: something is not incredible but it is a gleam if it is not meteorologic. sent4: if the cards is not incredible but it is a gleam then the batholith is homeopathic. sent5: if something is outer and is not a kind of a disenchantment it does not attack Balaenopteridae. sent6: if that the casino does bake but it is not meteorologic does not hold then the cards is not meteorologic. sent7: the fact that that something is incredible but it does not gleam is not correct if it is meteorologic is not false. sent8: if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct. sent9: everything is not a porgy. sent10: The Jackson does not overtake nibbler. sent11: the nibbler does not overtake Jackson. sent12: if the polyamide is not a kind of a settler but it is preventive it is a kind of a porgy. sent13: if the polyamide is a kind of a porgy then that the casino bakes but it is not meteorologic is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the nibbler is not a gleam if it is homeopathic and does not overtake Jackson.; sent1 & sent11 -> int2: the nibbler is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is homeopathic but it does not overtake Jackson then the fact that it is not a gleam is correct.

The fact that something is not a gleam is correct.

the nibbler does not overtake Jackson.

the fact that the Sauk either overtakes Monothelitism or does criticize or both is false.

sent1: the mountainside does not overtake deism. sent2: there is something such that it is a ripsaw. sent3: the mountainside does not overtake deism and it is not a immodesty. sent4: if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent5: if something does overtake Monothelitism then it is a puppet. sent6: the Sauk does overtake Monothelitism and/or criticizes if there is something such that it is a choc. sent7: if something is not a choc then the fact that it overtakes Monothelitism or criticizes or both is false. sent8: something that is not a choc does not overtake Monothelitism and does not criticize. sent9: if the mountainside does overtake deism and is not a kind of a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent10: everything is not nonlinear. sent11: if the mountainside is a immodesty and does not overtake Monothelitism then the Sauk overtakes deism.

¬({A}{c} v {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the Sauk overtakes Monothelitism and/or does criticize is wrong.

¬({A}{c} v {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Sauk either overtakes Monothelitism or does criticize or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the mountainside does not overtake deism. sent2: there is something such that it is a ripsaw. sent3: the mountainside does not overtake deism and it is not a immodesty. sent4: if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent5: if something does overtake Monothelitism then it is a puppet. sent6: the Sauk does overtake Monothelitism and/or criticizes if there is something such that it is a choc. sent7: if something is not a choc then the fact that it overtakes Monothelitism or criticizes or both is false. sent8: something that is not a choc does not overtake Monothelitism and does not criticize. sent9: if the mountainside does overtake deism and is not a kind of a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent10: everything is not nonlinear. sent11: if the mountainside is a immodesty and does not overtake Monothelitism then the Sauk overtakes deism. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the beaugregory is a kind of a choc.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is a choc.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc.

The beaugregory is not a immodesty if the mountainside does not overtake deism.

the mountainside does not overtake deism and it is not a immodesty.

the fact that the Sauk either overtakes Monothelitism or does criticize or both is false.

sent1: the mountainside does not overtake deism. sent2: there is something such that it is a ripsaw. sent3: the mountainside does not overtake deism and it is not a immodesty. sent4: if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent5: if something does overtake Monothelitism then it is a puppet. sent6: the Sauk does overtake Monothelitism and/or criticizes if there is something such that it is a choc. sent7: if something is not a choc then the fact that it overtakes Monothelitism or criticizes or both is false. sent8: something that is not a choc does not overtake Monothelitism and does not criticize. sent9: if the mountainside does overtake deism and is not a kind of a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent10: everything is not nonlinear. sent11: if the mountainside is a immodesty and does not overtake Monothelitism then the Sauk overtakes deism.

¬({A}{c} v {C}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the Sauk overtakes Monothelitism and/or does criticize is wrong.

¬({A}{c} v {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Sauk either overtakes Monothelitism or does criticize or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the mountainside does not overtake deism. sent2: there is something such that it is a ripsaw. sent3: the mountainside does not overtake deism and it is not a immodesty. sent4: if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent5: if something does overtake Monothelitism then it is a puppet. sent6: the Sauk does overtake Monothelitism and/or criticizes if there is something such that it is a choc. sent7: if something is not a choc then the fact that it overtakes Monothelitism or criticizes or both is false. sent8: something that is not a choc does not overtake Monothelitism and does not criticize. sent9: if the mountainside does overtake deism and is not a kind of a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc. sent10: everything is not nonlinear. sent11: if the mountainside is a immodesty and does not overtake Monothelitism then the Sauk overtakes deism. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the beaugregory is a kind of a choc.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is a choc.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the mountainside does not overtake deism and is not a immodesty the beaugregory is a kind of a choc.

The beaugregory is a kind of choc if the mountainside does not overtake deism.

the Sauk does overtake Monothelitism and/or criticizes if there is something such that it is a choc.

the fact that the secession does not occur and the Ford happens is false.

sent1: the wholesaling does not occur but the suttee happens. sent2: if the billing does not occur the fact that not the secession but the Ford happens does not hold. sent3: if the bill occurs then not the secession but the Ford happens. sent4: not the siliceousness but the ventilatoriness occurs if the geneticness occurs. sent5: the attacking Phlebotomus does not occur and the determining glossalgia happens. sent6: the billing prevents that the secession occurs. sent7: if the retail happens then the bill but not the mastering happens. sent8: if the sculpturalness occurs the infusion does not occur and the overtaking circumference does not occur. sent9: if that the infusion happens hold then the bill does not occur and the retail does not occur. sent10: the bill happens. sent11: the drink happens. sent12: that the infusion does not occur and the overtaking circumference does not occur prevents that the attacking reagent does not occur. sent13: if the sculpturalness does not occur then the overtaking circumference occurs and the infusion occurs. sent14: the secession does not occur. sent15: the eveningness does not occur and the dumpiness occurs.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

sent1: (¬{DJ} & {EM}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent3: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: {FP} -> (¬{GL} & {CP}) sent5: (¬{CR} & {IQ}) sent6: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent7: {B} -> ({A} & ¬{FA}) sent8: {E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent9: {C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent10: {A} sent11: {DT} sent12: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {DS} sent13: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent14: ¬{AA} sent15: (¬{BI} & {IO})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the secession does not occur but the Ford happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the secession does not occur and the Ford happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the wholesaling does not occur but the suttee happens. sent2: if the billing does not occur the fact that not the secession but the Ford happens does not hold. sent3: if the bill occurs then not the secession but the Ford happens. sent4: not the siliceousness but the ventilatoriness occurs if the geneticness occurs. sent5: the attacking Phlebotomus does not occur and the determining glossalgia happens. sent6: the billing prevents that the secession occurs. sent7: if the retail happens then the bill but not the mastering happens. sent8: if the sculpturalness occurs the infusion does not occur and the overtaking circumference does not occur. sent9: if that the infusion happens hold then the bill does not occur and the retail does not occur. sent10: the bill happens. sent11: the drink happens. sent12: that the infusion does not occur and the overtaking circumference does not occur prevents that the attacking reagent does not occur. sent13: if the sculpturalness does not occur then the overtaking circumference occurs and the infusion occurs. sent14: the secession does not occur. sent15: the eveningness does not occur and the dumpiness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the bill occurs then not the secession but the Ford happens.

if the bill occurs then not the secession but the Ford happens.

the bill happens.

the buckboard is a toponymy.

sent1: the denim is sociological. sent2: there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent3: if the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable the buckboard is a toponymy. sent4: either something is a toponymy or it is perishable or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a fiduciary then the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable. sent6: the ironmongery is a toponymy. sent7: the ironmongery is a perishable if there is something such that it does overtake seaquake or it is a kind of a fiduciary or both.

{D}{b}

sent1: {EE}{hc} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: (Ex): ({D}x v {C}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent6: {D}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the buckboard is a toponymy. ; $context$ = sent1: the denim is sociological. sent2: there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent3: if the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable the buckboard is a toponymy. sent4: either something is a toponymy or it is perishable or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a fiduciary then the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable. sent6: the ironmongery is a toponymy. sent7: the ironmongery is a perishable if there is something such that it does overtake seaquake or it is a kind of a fiduciary or both. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the ironmongery is a perishable.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary.

It is possible that it overtakes seaquake and is a kind of fiduciary.

the ironmongery is a perishable if there is something such that it does overtake seaquake or it is a kind of a fiduciary or both.

the buckboard is a toponymy.

sent1: the denim is sociological. sent2: there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent3: if the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable the buckboard is a toponymy. sent4: either something is a toponymy or it is perishable or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a fiduciary then the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable. sent6: the ironmongery is a toponymy. sent7: the ironmongery is a perishable if there is something such that it does overtake seaquake or it is a kind of a fiduciary or both.

{D}{b}

sent1: {EE}{hc} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: (Ex): ({D}x v {C}x) sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent6: {D}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the buckboard is a toponymy. ; $context$ = sent1: the denim is sociological. sent2: there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent3: if the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable the buckboard is a toponymy. sent4: either something is a toponymy or it is perishable or both. sent5: if there is something such that it is a kind of a fiduciary then the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable. sent6: the ironmongery is a toponymy. sent7: the ironmongery is a perishable if there is something such that it does overtake seaquake or it is a kind of a fiduciary or both. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the ironmongery is a perishable.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does overtake seaquake and/or it is a kind of a fiduciary.

It is possible that it overtakes seaquake and is a fiduciary.

if the ironmongery is a kind of a perishable the buckboard is a toponymy.

the radicle is a ngultrum.

sent1: if the fact that the newcomer is not a peripheral hold it is glomerular and it is a kind of a Vila. sent2: if the newcomer is a evolutionist but it is not cytokinetic it is peripheral. sent3: the radicle is not a ngultrum if it is not glomerular. sent4: the radicle is not glomerular. sent5: the newcomer is a kind of a evolutionist that is not cytokinetic. sent6: if something is promotional it is a interestedness and it is not a ngultrum.

{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Sodom is not glomerular.

¬{A}{dj}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the radicle is a ngultrum. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the newcomer is not a peripheral hold it is glomerular and it is a kind of a Vila. sent2: if the newcomer is a evolutionist but it is not cytokinetic it is peripheral. sent3: the radicle is not a ngultrum if it is not glomerular. sent4: the radicle is not glomerular. sent5: the newcomer is a kind of a evolutionist that is not cytokinetic. sent6: if something is promotional it is a interestedness and it is not a ngultrum. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the radicle is not a ngultrum if it is not glomerular.

the radicle is not a ngultrum if it is not glomerular.

the radicle is not glomerular.

the gangplank is not a Martian.

sent1: the overcompensation is not a kind of a meerkat if there is something such that the fact that it is a meerkat and is Martian is incorrect. sent2: if something is a Housatonic then it is not a Martian. sent3: if an unintelligible thing toys then the amphotericin is not a kind of a Housatonic. sent4: the wimple is not intelligible and toys. sent5: that the gangplank is not a meerkat is incorrect. sent6: the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat. sent7: something is a Martian if it is not a meerkat. sent8: the czar is a meerkat.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the overcompensation is a Housatonic is not incorrect.

{B}{hc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gangplank is not a Martian. ; $context$ = sent1: the overcompensation is not a kind of a meerkat if there is something such that the fact that it is a meerkat and is Martian is incorrect. sent2: if something is a Housatonic then it is not a Martian. sent3: if an unintelligible thing toys then the amphotericin is not a kind of a Housatonic. sent4: the wimple is not intelligible and toys. sent5: that the gangplank is not a meerkat is incorrect. sent6: the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat. sent7: something is a Martian if it is not a meerkat. sent8: the czar is a meerkat. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the gangplank is a Housatonic.; sent2 -> int2: if the gangplank is a Housatonic the fact that it is not a kind of a Martian hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat.

If it is a kind of meerkat, the gangplank is a Housatonic.

that the gangplank is not a meerkat is incorrect.

the gangplank is not a Martian.

sent1: the overcompensation is not a kind of a meerkat if there is something such that the fact that it is a meerkat and is Martian is incorrect. sent2: if something is a Housatonic then it is not a Martian. sent3: if an unintelligible thing toys then the amphotericin is not a kind of a Housatonic. sent4: the wimple is not intelligible and toys. sent5: that the gangplank is not a meerkat is incorrect. sent6: the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat. sent7: something is a Martian if it is not a meerkat. sent8: the czar is a meerkat.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the overcompensation is a Housatonic is not incorrect.

{B}{hc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gangplank is not a Martian. ; $context$ = sent1: the overcompensation is not a kind of a meerkat if there is something such that the fact that it is a meerkat and is Martian is incorrect. sent2: if something is a Housatonic then it is not a Martian. sent3: if an unintelligible thing toys then the amphotericin is not a kind of a Housatonic. sent4: the wimple is not intelligible and toys. sent5: that the gangplank is not a meerkat is incorrect. sent6: the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat. sent7: something is a Martian if it is not a meerkat. sent8: the czar is a meerkat. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent5 -> int1: the gangplank is a Housatonic.; sent2 -> int2: if the gangplank is a Housatonic the fact that it is not a kind of a Martian hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gangplank is a Housatonic if it is a kind of a meerkat.

The gangplank is a kind of meerkat.

if something is a Housatonic then it is not a Martian.

the issue is cleaning.

sent1: the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar. sent2: that the elm is a dad is not wrong. sent3: the rhyolite is a Eurodollar. sent4: something is transdermal if it does attack bird and does not familiarize. sent5: if the fact that the rhyolite is a museum is correct the fact that the fact that the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar but it is not a dad is not wrong is not true. sent6: the rhyolite is a dad if the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent7: if the baton is transdermal the paperweight is a truancy but not a Satyridae. sent8: that the issue attacks cassava is not wrong if it is cleaning. sent9: the issue is a cleaning if the rhyolite is a kind of a dad. sent10: the Christmasberry is a kind of a negotiation. sent11: the simoom is a bastioned if the keratohyalin is a kind of a bastioned. sent12: the baton is a tailfin if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Gasterophilus or is not a motet or both is not true. sent13: something that is a dad is a Eurodollar. sent14: if the fact that something is a Eurodollar that is not a dad is not correct it is not cleaning. sent15: something attacks bird and does not familiarize if the fact that it is a kind of a tailfin is right. sent16: if the rhyolite cleans then the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent17: if the simoom is a bastioned that it is a Gasterophilus and/or it is not a motet does not hold. sent18: the inhibitor is a kind of a dad. sent19: the keratohyalin is a bastioned if the Christmasberry is a negotiation. sent20: there is nothing that is not a kind of a truancy and is a museum.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the disturber is a Eurodollar.

{A}{cm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the issue is cleaning. ; $context$ = sent1: the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar. sent2: that the elm is a dad is not wrong. sent3: the rhyolite is a Eurodollar. sent4: something is transdermal if it does attack bird and does not familiarize. sent5: if the fact that the rhyolite is a museum is correct the fact that the fact that the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar but it is not a dad is not wrong is not true. sent6: the rhyolite is a dad if the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent7: if the baton is transdermal the paperweight is a truancy but not a Satyridae. sent8: that the issue attacks cassava is not wrong if it is cleaning. sent9: the issue is a cleaning if the rhyolite is a kind of a dad. sent10: the Christmasberry is a kind of a negotiation. sent11: the simoom is a bastioned if the keratohyalin is a kind of a bastioned. sent12: the baton is a tailfin if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Gasterophilus or is not a motet or both is not true. sent13: something that is a dad is a Eurodollar. sent14: if the fact that something is a Eurodollar that is not a dad is not correct it is not cleaning. sent15: something attacks bird and does not familiarize if the fact that it is a kind of a tailfin is right. sent16: if the rhyolite cleans then the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent17: if the simoom is a bastioned that it is a Gasterophilus and/or it is not a motet does not hold. sent18: the inhibitor is a kind of a dad. sent19: the keratohyalin is a bastioned if the Christmasberry is a negotiation. sent20: there is nothing that is not a kind of a truancy and is a museum. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the rhyolite is a dad.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar.

If it is a Eurodollar, the rhyolite is a dad.

the rhyolite is a Eurodollar.

the issue is cleaning.

sent1: the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar. sent2: that the elm is a dad is not wrong. sent3: the rhyolite is a Eurodollar. sent4: something is transdermal if it does attack bird and does not familiarize. sent5: if the fact that the rhyolite is a museum is correct the fact that the fact that the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar but it is not a dad is not wrong is not true. sent6: the rhyolite is a dad if the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent7: if the baton is transdermal the paperweight is a truancy but not a Satyridae. sent8: that the issue attacks cassava is not wrong if it is cleaning. sent9: the issue is a cleaning if the rhyolite is a kind of a dad. sent10: the Christmasberry is a kind of a negotiation. sent11: the simoom is a bastioned if the keratohyalin is a kind of a bastioned. sent12: the baton is a tailfin if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Gasterophilus or is not a motet or both is not true. sent13: something that is a dad is a Eurodollar. sent14: if the fact that something is a Eurodollar that is not a dad is not correct it is not cleaning. sent15: something attacks bird and does not familiarize if the fact that it is a kind of a tailfin is right. sent16: if the rhyolite cleans then the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent17: if the simoom is a bastioned that it is a Gasterophilus and/or it is not a motet does not hold. sent18: the inhibitor is a kind of a dad. sent19: the keratohyalin is a bastioned if the Christmasberry is a negotiation. sent20: there is nothing that is not a kind of a truancy and is a museum.

{C}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the disturber is a Eurodollar.

{A}{cm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the issue is cleaning. ; $context$ = sent1: the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar. sent2: that the elm is a dad is not wrong. sent3: the rhyolite is a Eurodollar. sent4: something is transdermal if it does attack bird and does not familiarize. sent5: if the fact that the rhyolite is a museum is correct the fact that the fact that the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar but it is not a dad is not wrong is not true. sent6: the rhyolite is a dad if the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent7: if the baton is transdermal the paperweight is a truancy but not a Satyridae. sent8: that the issue attacks cassava is not wrong if it is cleaning. sent9: the issue is a cleaning if the rhyolite is a kind of a dad. sent10: the Christmasberry is a kind of a negotiation. sent11: the simoom is a bastioned if the keratohyalin is a kind of a bastioned. sent12: the baton is a tailfin if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Gasterophilus or is not a motet or both is not true. sent13: something that is a dad is a Eurodollar. sent14: if the fact that something is a Eurodollar that is not a dad is not correct it is not cleaning. sent15: something attacks bird and does not familiarize if the fact that it is a kind of a tailfin is right. sent16: if the rhyolite cleans then the issue is a kind of a Eurodollar. sent17: if the simoom is a bastioned that it is a Gasterophilus and/or it is not a motet does not hold. sent18: the inhibitor is a kind of a dad. sent19: the keratohyalin is a bastioned if the Christmasberry is a negotiation. sent20: there is nothing that is not a kind of a truancy and is a museum. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the rhyolite is a dad.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rhyolite is a dad if it is a Eurodollar.

If it is a Eurodollar, the rhyolite is a father.

the issue is a cleaning if the rhyolite is a kind of a dad.

the overtaking hegemony happens.

sent1: both the Burmese and the overtaking hegemony occurs if the gravure does not occur. sent2: the gravure happens if the Burmeseness occurs. sent3: if the Burmeseness does not occur then that not the unacceptableness but the attacking Carpodacus happens is false. sent4: the Burmese and the zap occurs if the attacking lubrication does not occur. sent5: the fact that the unacceptableness happens and the attacking Carpodacus occurs is wrong if the Burmeseness does not occur. sent6: that not the attacking Florey but the microsomalness occurs is incorrect if the Burmeseness happens. sent7: if the unacceptableness occurs the overtaking hegemony happens. sent8: the Burmese does not occur. sent9: that the unacceptableness happens and the attacking Carpodacus occurs does not hold. sent10: that that the patricide does not occur but the determining embolus happens is correct is incorrect. sent11: the gravure does not occur and the zap does not occur if the attacking lubrication does not occur.

{B}

sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {D}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent6: {A} -> ¬(¬{AL} & {EA}) sent7: {AA} -> {B} sent8: ¬{A} sent9: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent10: ¬(¬{JI} & {L}) sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the overtaking hegemony does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overtaking hegemony happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the Burmese and the overtaking hegemony occurs if the gravure does not occur. sent2: the gravure happens if the Burmeseness occurs. sent3: if the Burmeseness does not occur then that not the unacceptableness but the attacking Carpodacus happens is false. sent4: the Burmese and the zap occurs if the attacking lubrication does not occur. sent5: the fact that the unacceptableness happens and the attacking Carpodacus occurs is wrong if the Burmeseness does not occur. sent6: that not the attacking Florey but the microsomalness occurs is incorrect if the Burmeseness happens. sent7: if the unacceptableness occurs the overtaking hegemony happens. sent8: the Burmese does not occur. sent9: that the unacceptableness happens and the attacking Carpodacus occurs does not hold. sent10: that that the patricide does not occur but the determining embolus happens is correct is incorrect. sent11: the gravure does not occur and the zap does not occur if the attacking lubrication does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the Burmeseness does not occur then that not the unacceptableness but the attacking Carpodacus happens is false.

if the Burmeseness does not occur then that not the unacceptableness but the attacking Carpodacus happens is false.

the Burmese does not occur.

the ammonite is not a kind of a Ustilago and/or it is not a kind of a Milanese.

sent1: that something is a turtle is not wrong if it is sexy. sent2: if the Rajput is not a lot the fact that either the flowage is not sexy or it determines underbelly or both is not right. sent3: everything is not tubercular. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a Milanese the fact that the ammonite is a Ustilago but not a Limonium is not correct. sent5: the fact that the Rajput does determine disenchantment and/or it is a kind of a episiotomy is incorrect if it is not a conformist. sent6: if the casino is sexy the larvacide is sexy. sent7: if something is not a Ustilago that it does not overtake flowage and it is servomechanical is not false. sent8: the Rajput is not conformist if it does determine herb. sent9: the ammonite is not a kind of a Ustilago if the foal is non-tubercular thing that is thermohydrometric. sent10: the casino is sexy if that the flowage is not sexy and/or it does determine underbelly is not true. sent11: the ammonite is a vanilla if the larvacide is a turtle. sent12: something is a Limonium if it is not non-vanilla. sent13: that something is not a Ustilago and/or is not a kind of a Milanese is not right if it is a kind of a Limonium. sent14: everything is not tubercular and it is thermohydrometric. sent15: if the fact that something determines disenchantment and/or it is a episiotomy is not correct it is not a kind of a lot.

(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the myxovirus does not overtake flowage and is not non-servomechanical.

(¬{GJ}{cs} & {BU}{cs})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ammonite is not a kind of a Ustilago and/or it is not a kind of a Milanese. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a turtle is not wrong if it is sexy. sent2: if the Rajput is not a lot the fact that either the flowage is not sexy or it determines underbelly or both is not right. sent3: everything is not tubercular. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a Milanese the fact that the ammonite is a Ustilago but not a Limonium is not correct. sent5: the fact that the Rajput does determine disenchantment and/or it is a kind of a episiotomy is incorrect if it is not a conformist. sent6: if the casino is sexy the larvacide is sexy. sent7: if something is not a Ustilago that it does not overtake flowage and it is servomechanical is not false. sent8: the Rajput is not conformist if it does determine herb. sent9: the ammonite is not a kind of a Ustilago if the foal is non-tubercular thing that is thermohydrometric. sent10: the casino is sexy if that the flowage is not sexy and/or it does determine underbelly is not true. sent11: the ammonite is a vanilla if the larvacide is a turtle. sent12: something is a Limonium if it is not non-vanilla. sent13: that something is not a Ustilago and/or is not a kind of a Milanese is not right if it is a kind of a Limonium. sent14: everything is not tubercular and it is thermohydrometric. sent15: if the fact that something determines disenchantment and/or it is a episiotomy is not correct it is not a kind of a lot. ; $proof$ =

sent14 -> int1: the foal is not tubercular but it is thermohydrometric.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: that the ammonite is not a Ustilago is correct.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

everything is not tubercular and it is thermohydrometric.

everything is not tubercular and it is thermohydrometric.

the ammonite is not a kind of a Ustilago if the foal is non-tubercular thing that is thermohydrometric.

that the grilling does not occur if the fact that the stumbling does not occur is true is incorrect.

sent1: the grill does not occur if the fact that either the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens does not hold. sent2: the arthralgicness does not occur. sent3: if the stumbling does not occur the fact that the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens is wrong. sent4: if the attacking coralwood does not occur then that the reunion happens or the biogenicness happens or both is incorrect. sent5: the preciseness does not occur.

¬(¬{A} -> ¬{B})

sent1: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{AB} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent4: ¬{JI} -> ¬({ID} v {BT}) sent5: ¬{CK}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the grilling does not occur if the fact that the stumbling does not occur is true is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the grill does not occur if the fact that either the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens does not hold. sent2: the arthralgicness does not occur. sent3: if the stumbling does not occur the fact that the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens is wrong. sent4: if the attacking coralwood does not occur then that the reunion happens or the biogenicness happens or both is incorrect. sent5: the preciseness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the stumbling does not occur.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: that either the ceramics happens or the arthralgicness occurs or both is not true.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the grilling does not occur hold.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the stumbling does not occur the fact that the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens is wrong.

if the stumbling does not occur the fact that the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens is wrong.

the grill does not occur if the fact that either the ceramicsness or the arthralgicness or both happens does not hold.

that the determining glossalgia happens is correct.

sent1: the fact that the determining glossalgia does not occur is correct if the fact that the non-ritualisticness and the inextricableness happens is false. sent2: that the Genesis and the hydrogenating allosaur happens is brought about by the non-ambulacralness. sent3: the fact that the planarness does not occur hold if the overtaking disenchantment and the unfortunateness happens. sent4: if the ritualisticness occurs the determining glossalgia does not occur. sent5: if the determining poison does not occur the remise occurs. sent6: that the flashback does not occur and the landslide does not occur is incorrect if the anisometropicness does not occur. sent7: that the planarness does not occur but the Genesis happens prevents the non-hypertonicness. sent8: if the overtaking second-in-command does not occur that the passing but not the academicianship occurs is not incorrect. sent9: both the anisometropicness and the determining glossalgia happens if the academicianship does not occur. sent10: the determining poison does not occur. sent11: that the remise happens yields that both the overtaking disenchantment and the unfortunateness happens. sent12: that both the ritualisticness and the non-extricableness happens does not hold. sent13: the ambulacralness does not occur and the acting does not occur. sent14: that the hypertonicness happens yields that the plantigradeness does not occur and/or the non-calendricness. sent15: that the ritualisticness does not occur and the extricableness does not occur is not correct. sent16: if the abstinence does not occur then the fact that the overtaking second-in-command does not occur but the spanging occurs is right.

{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the flashback does not occur and the landslide does not occur is false.

¬(¬{IF} & ¬{JF})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the determining glossalgia happens is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the determining glossalgia does not occur is correct if the fact that the non-ritualisticness and the inextricableness happens is false. sent2: that the Genesis and the hydrogenating allosaur happens is brought about by the non-ambulacralness. sent3: the fact that the planarness does not occur hold if the overtaking disenchantment and the unfortunateness happens. sent4: if the ritualisticness occurs the determining glossalgia does not occur. sent5: if the determining poison does not occur the remise occurs. sent6: that the flashback does not occur and the landslide does not occur is incorrect if the anisometropicness does not occur. sent7: that the planarness does not occur but the Genesis happens prevents the non-hypertonicness. sent8: if the overtaking second-in-command does not occur that the passing but not the academicianship occurs is not incorrect. sent9: both the anisometropicness and the determining glossalgia happens if the academicianship does not occur. sent10: the determining poison does not occur. sent11: that the remise happens yields that both the overtaking disenchantment and the unfortunateness happens. sent12: that both the ritualisticness and the non-extricableness happens does not hold. sent13: the ambulacralness does not occur and the acting does not occur. sent14: that the hypertonicness happens yields that the plantigradeness does not occur and/or the non-calendricness. sent15: that the ritualisticness does not occur and the extricableness does not occur is not correct. sent16: if the abstinence does not occur then the fact that the overtaking second-in-command does not occur but the spanging occurs is right. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the determining glossalgia does not occur is correct if the fact that the non-ritualisticness and the inextricableness happens is false.

the fact that the determining glossalgia does not occur is correct if the fact that the non-ritualisticness and the inextricableness happens is false.

that the ritualisticness does not occur and the extricableness does not occur is not correct.

the latitude does melt.

sent1: if the specimen does not mummify then the townie is a kind of confrontational thing that is higher. sent2: there is something such that it is confrontational. sent3: the fact that the regnellidium is a petitio and it does attack marmoset hold. sent4: something mummifies. sent5: the mayhaw is confrontational. sent6: that the specimen mummifies and is not a petitio is false if there is something such that it is a kind of a petitio. sent7: if that something does mummify and is not a kind of a petitio is not correct then that it does not mummify is not false. sent8: the fact that something is salty is correct. sent9: the mayhaw is confrontational if something is salty and it does melt. sent10: the mayhaw is salty. sent11: the mayhaw cards and it is antiapartheid. sent12: either the latitude is salty or it does melt or both if something does mummify. sent13: the mayhaw is salty and/or it does not melt if the townie is confrontational.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the latitude does not melt.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the latitude does melt. ; $context$ = sent1: if the specimen does not mummify then the townie is a kind of confrontational thing that is higher. sent2: there is something such that it is confrontational. sent3: the fact that the regnellidium is a petitio and it does attack marmoset hold. sent4: something mummifies. sent5: the mayhaw is confrontational. sent6: that the specimen mummifies and is not a petitio is false if there is something such that it is a kind of a petitio. sent7: if that something does mummify and is not a kind of a petitio is not correct then that it does not mummify is not false. sent8: the fact that something is salty is correct. sent9: the mayhaw is confrontational if something is salty and it does melt. sent10: the mayhaw is salty. sent11: the mayhaw cards and it is antiapartheid. sent12: either the latitude is salty or it does melt or both if something does mummify. sent13: the mayhaw is salty and/or it does not melt if the townie is confrontational. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mayhaw is confrontational.

the mayhaw is confrontational.

the mayhaw is salty.

the brick is not a drone.

sent1: there exists something such that it is both a drone and not adrenal. sent2: if there exists something such that it does hydrogenate nearside then the camail is not a kind of a drone. sent3: if there exists something such that that it hydrogenates nearside and it is not adrenal does not hold then the brick does not drone. sent4: if something is a kind of a drone then that the camail is not an adrenal is true. sent5: the brick does not drone if there is something such that it is an adrenal. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it hydrogenates nearside and is a kind of an adrenal is not right.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the brick is not a drone. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is both a drone and not adrenal. sent2: if there exists something such that it does hydrogenate nearside then the camail is not a kind of a drone. sent3: if there exists something such that that it hydrogenates nearside and it is not adrenal does not hold then the brick does not drone. sent4: if something is a kind of a drone then that the camail is not an adrenal is true. sent5: the brick does not drone if there is something such that it is an adrenal. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it hydrogenates nearside and is a kind of an adrenal is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is both a drone and not adrenal.

there exists something such that it is both a drone and not adrenal.

there is something such that the fact that it hydrogenates nearside and is a kind of an adrenal is not right.

the Laos is a BR.

sent1: if something is not an outlet and/or is not a kind of a BR then it is not a BR. sent2: everything is an outlet. sent3: if a non-communist thing is not a rogue it does not nag. sent4: everything is an outlet that is a infarct. sent5: if something nags then it is prewar. sent6: something is a infarct if it does not nag. sent7: if the bearberry is a infarct the Laos does nag.

{D}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bearberry is prewar if it does nag.

{C}{aa} -> {IN}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Laos is a BR. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not an outlet and/or is not a kind of a BR then it is not a BR. sent2: everything is an outlet. sent3: if a non-communist thing is not a rogue it does not nag. sent4: everything is an outlet that is a infarct. sent5: if something nags then it is prewar. sent6: something is a infarct if it does not nag. sent7: if the bearberry is a infarct the Laos does nag. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

everything is an outlet that is a infarct.

everything is an outlet that is a infarct.

if the bearberry is a infarct the Laos does nag.

the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur.

sent1: the radialness does not occur if the fact that not the Wittgensteinianness but the abranchiateness happens is false. sent2: that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is triggered by the hydrogenating dressed. sent3: that the pacification happens and the speakership does not occur is not correct. sent4: the fact that the rebuttal does not occur and the flexion occurs does not hold if the laxative does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is not false is not true if the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Chechen occurs but the brewing does not occur does not hold. sent7: that not the hydrogenating seaport but the sarcolemmicness occurs is not right. sent8: both the ownership and the idealization occurs if the attacking screech does not occur. sent9: the fact that the prefabrication but not the strabotomy occurs is wrong. sent10: that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur triggers that the hydrogenating dressed and the tetanus occurs. sent11: the hail does not occur. sent12: if the idealization occurs then that the contrivance does not occur and the abranchiateness does not occur does not hold. sent13: that the prefabrication does not occur and the tetanus does not occur is brought about by that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur. sent14: that not the expedition but the interchange happens does not hold if the strabotomy does not occur. sent15: if that the non-augiticness and the whimper happens is false the fact that the hemisphericness does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent17: if the overtaking monopolist occurs the attacking pan does not occur. sent18: if the ownership and the idealization occurs then the contrivance does not occur. sent19: that not the hydrogenating Oswald but the abranchiateness happens is brought about by that the contrivance does not occur.

(¬{C} & ¬{A})

sent1: ¬(¬{JE} & {F}) -> ¬{EE} sent2: {B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬({IS} & ¬{T}) sent4: ¬{CR} -> ¬(¬{GH} & {GU}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent6: ¬({IR} & ¬{CM}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent9: ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {D}) sent11: ¬{DO} sent12: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent13: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent14: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AD} & {CI}) sent15: ¬(¬{ID} & {IP}) -> ¬{IL} sent16: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {EA} -> ¬{FG} sent18: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent19: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & {F})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur.

(¬{C} & ¬{A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the radialness does not occur if the fact that not the Wittgensteinianness but the abranchiateness happens is false. sent2: that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is triggered by the hydrogenating dressed. sent3: that the pacification happens and the speakership does not occur is not correct. sent4: the fact that the rebuttal does not occur and the flexion occurs does not hold if the laxative does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is not false is not true if the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Chechen occurs but the brewing does not occur does not hold. sent7: that not the hydrogenating seaport but the sarcolemmicness occurs is not right. sent8: both the ownership and the idealization occurs if the attacking screech does not occur. sent9: the fact that the prefabrication but not the strabotomy occurs is wrong. sent10: that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur triggers that the hydrogenating dressed and the tetanus occurs. sent11: the hail does not occur. sent12: if the idealization occurs then that the contrivance does not occur and the abranchiateness does not occur does not hold. sent13: that the prefabrication does not occur and the tetanus does not occur is brought about by that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur. sent14: that not the expedition but the interchange happens does not hold if the strabotomy does not occur. sent15: if that the non-augiticness and the whimper happens is false the fact that the hemisphericness does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent17: if the overtaking monopolist occurs the attacking pan does not occur. sent18: if the ownership and the idealization occurs then the contrivance does not occur. sent19: that not the hydrogenating Oswald but the abranchiateness happens is brought about by that the contrivance does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: that the hydrogenating dressed does not occur is right.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur.

If the sarcolemmicness doesn't hold then the hydrogenating seaport doesn't happen.

that not the hydrogenating seaport but the sarcolemmicness occurs is not right.

the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur.

sent1: the radialness does not occur if the fact that not the Wittgensteinianness but the abranchiateness happens is false. sent2: that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is triggered by the hydrogenating dressed. sent3: that the pacification happens and the speakership does not occur is not correct. sent4: the fact that the rebuttal does not occur and the flexion occurs does not hold if the laxative does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is not false is not true if the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Chechen occurs but the brewing does not occur does not hold. sent7: that not the hydrogenating seaport but the sarcolemmicness occurs is not right. sent8: both the ownership and the idealization occurs if the attacking screech does not occur. sent9: the fact that the prefabrication but not the strabotomy occurs is wrong. sent10: that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur triggers that the hydrogenating dressed and the tetanus occurs. sent11: the hail does not occur. sent12: if the idealization occurs then that the contrivance does not occur and the abranchiateness does not occur does not hold. sent13: that the prefabrication does not occur and the tetanus does not occur is brought about by that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur. sent14: that not the expedition but the interchange happens does not hold if the strabotomy does not occur. sent15: if that the non-augiticness and the whimper happens is false the fact that the hemisphericness does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent17: if the overtaking monopolist occurs the attacking pan does not occur. sent18: if the ownership and the idealization occurs then the contrivance does not occur. sent19: that not the hydrogenating Oswald but the abranchiateness happens is brought about by that the contrivance does not occur.

(¬{C} & ¬{A})

sent1: ¬(¬{JE} & {F}) -> ¬{EE} sent2: {B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬({IS} & ¬{T}) sent4: ¬{CR} -> ¬(¬{GH} & {GU}) sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent6: ¬({IR} & ¬{CM}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent9: ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {D}) sent11: ¬{DO} sent12: {H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent13: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent14: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AD} & {CI}) sent15: ¬(¬{ID} & {IP}) -> ¬{IL} sent16: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {EA} -> ¬{FG} sent18: ({I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent19: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & {F})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur.

(¬{C} & ¬{A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the radialness does not occur if the fact that not the Wittgensteinianness but the abranchiateness happens is false. sent2: that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is triggered by the hydrogenating dressed. sent3: that the pacification happens and the speakership does not occur is not correct. sent4: the fact that the rebuttal does not occur and the flexion occurs does not hold if the laxative does not occur. sent5: the fact that the fact that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is not false is not true if the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Chechen occurs but the brewing does not occur does not hold. sent7: that not the hydrogenating seaport but the sarcolemmicness occurs is not right. sent8: both the ownership and the idealization occurs if the attacking screech does not occur. sent9: the fact that the prefabrication but not the strabotomy occurs is wrong. sent10: that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur triggers that the hydrogenating dressed and the tetanus occurs. sent11: the hail does not occur. sent12: if the idealization occurs then that the contrivance does not occur and the abranchiateness does not occur does not hold. sent13: that the prefabrication does not occur and the tetanus does not occur is brought about by that the hydrogenating Oswald does not occur. sent14: that not the expedition but the interchange happens does not hold if the strabotomy does not occur. sent15: if that the non-augiticness and the whimper happens is false the fact that the hemisphericness does not occur is not incorrect. sent16: if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur. sent17: if the overtaking monopolist occurs the attacking pan does not occur. sent18: if the ownership and the idealization occurs then the contrivance does not occur. sent19: that not the hydrogenating Oswald but the abranchiateness happens is brought about by that the contrivance does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: that the hydrogenating dressed does not occur is right.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the hydrogenating seaport does not occur and the sarcolemmicness happens does not hold then the hydrogenating dressed does not occur.

If the sarcolemmicness doesn't hold then the hydrogenating seaport won't happen.

the fact that the fact that the prefabrication does not occur and the strabotomy does not occur is not false is not true if the hydrogenating dressed does not occur.

the floodhead either is a caucus or is flowerless or both.

sent1: there is something such that that it is prehensile thing that attacks Yangon is not right. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not prehensile and attacks Yangon does not hold the floodhead caucuses. sent3: if there is something such that it is prehensile the fact that the floodhead caucuses is right. sent4: the floodhead is not dramatic if the fact that the streak is not nonspherical and it is non-chauvinistic does not hold. sent5: that the crabgrass is prehensile and it attacks Yangon is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is a caucus and/or is flowerless is incorrect if it is not dramatic. sent7: that the crabgrass is not prehensile but it does attack Yangon does not hold. sent8: something is not prehensile and does attack Yangon.

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

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the floodhead is a caucus or it is flowerless or both is wrong.

¬({A}{a} v {B}{a})