Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal.

sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Columbian. sent4: if something is not a chicane it is not a fascist. sent5: the amiodarone is buccal thing that coins if the fact that the dressmaker is a clapboard is not right. sent6: something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold. sent7: something is not Columbian if that either it is butyric or it is not a wrapped or both is not right. sent8: the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian. sent9: the amiodarone is Columbian. sent10: if the transpiration is not a fascist that the tincture is both a clapboard and not actinomycotic is not right. sent11: the dressmaker is not actinomycotic. sent12: the fact that if the dressmaker does not coin then the dressmaker is not buccal is correct. sent13: the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric.

({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the wanderer is not Columbian.

¬{B}{iu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dressmaker is a kind of a wrapped and is not buccal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the tincture is a clapboard but it is not actinomycotic is not correct the dressmaker is not a clapboard. sent2: something is not buccal if it is not a coin. sent3: something is buccal and it is butyric if it is not Columbian. sent4: if something is not a chicane it is not a fascist. sent5: the amiodarone is buccal thing that coins if the fact that the dressmaker is a clapboard is not right. sent6: something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold. sent7: something is not Columbian if that either it is butyric or it is not a wrapped or both is not right. sent8: the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian. sent9: the amiodarone is Columbian. sent10: if the transpiration is not a fascist that the tincture is both a clapboard and not actinomycotic is not right. sent11: the dressmaker is not actinomycotic. sent12: the fact that if the dressmaker does not coin then the dressmaker is not buccal is correct. sent13: the fact that the dressmaker wraps is right if the amiodarone is butyric. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the amiodarone is butyric thing that is Columbian.

The amiodarone is a thing in Columbia.

something is not buccal if that it is not a clapboard and is a coin does not hold.

the packaging does circumnavigate mystification.

sent1: something is a kind of a canon if it is inductive. sent2: the suction is not a canon. sent3: if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both. sent4: if the tosser is a kind of a mellowness the packaging circumnavigates mystification. sent5: if the tosser is not a kind of a hubcap the suction is inductive.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the packaging does not circumnavigate mystification.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the packaging does circumnavigate mystification. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a canon if it is inductive. sent2: the suction is not a canon. sent3: if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both. sent4: if the tosser is a kind of a mellowness the packaging circumnavigates mystification. sent5: if the tosser is not a kind of a hubcap the suction is inductive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both.

if the suction is not a canon either the tosser is a mellowness or it is visceral or both.

the suction is not a canon.

the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass.

sent1: if that the gang is a cadaverine that is neolithic is not correct then the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. sent2: the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass and does access Mergus if it is not presidential. sent3: the gang does not circumnavigate silkgrass if the budgerigar is not a cadaverine. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a minyan and/or it is not a dumps is not true then the fact that the budgerigar is not solanaceous is correct. sent5: the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it accesses radiotelephone if it circumnavigates osteopath. sent6: if the dumps does not isolate ivory then that it is either not a minyan or not a dumps or both is false. sent7: something does circumnavigate silkgrass if it does access Mergus. sent8: if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false. sent9: the dumps does circumnavigate osteopath. sent10: if the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it does access radiotelephone it does not isolate ivory. sent11: something does access Mergus and/or it is presidential if it is not prokaryotic. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of unequivocal thing that is not a Polo is not true it is not prokaryotic. sent13: the budgerigar is not neolithic.

¬{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass.

{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the gang is a cadaverine that is neolithic is not correct then the budgerigar does not circumnavigate silkgrass. sent2: the budgerigar circumnavigates silkgrass and does access Mergus if it is not presidential. sent3: the gang does not circumnavigate silkgrass if the budgerigar is not a cadaverine. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a minyan and/or it is not a dumps is not true then the fact that the budgerigar is not solanaceous is correct. sent5: the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it accesses radiotelephone if it circumnavigates osteopath. sent6: if the dumps does not isolate ivory then that it is either not a minyan or not a dumps or both is false. sent7: something does circumnavigate silkgrass if it does access Mergus. sent8: if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false. sent9: the dumps does circumnavigate osteopath. sent10: if the dumps does not circumnavigate mustard but it does access radiotelephone it does not isolate ivory. sent11: something does access Mergus and/or it is presidential if it is not prokaryotic. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of unequivocal thing that is not a Polo is not true it is not prokaryotic. sent13: the budgerigar is not neolithic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false.

if the fact that something is not solanaceous is not incorrect the fact that it is unequivocal and it is not a Polo is false.

the gang does not circumnavigate silkgrass if the budgerigar is not a cadaverine.

the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens.

sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

({A} & ¬{B})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.

The circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not happen.

if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs.

the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens.

sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

({A} & ¬{B})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.

The circumnavigating Acanthocereus doesn't happen.

the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens.

sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

({A} & ¬{B})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.

The circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.

the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur.

the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens.

sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold.

({A} & ¬{B})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hyperextension but not the isolating Modicon happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the attention does not occur and the accessing scab does not occur. sent2: the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur. sent3: if the fact that the Orwellianness happens and the arsenicalness does not occur does not hold then the arsenicalness occurs. sent4: the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur. sent5: the fact that the Orwellianness but not the arsenical happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the circumnavigating Acanthocereus does not occur.

The circumnavigating of Acanthocereus doesn't happen.

the isolating Modicon does not occur if the arsenicalness happens and the attention does not occur.

that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong.

sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gimlet is not a exteroception.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent20 -> int1: that the nutcracker does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does load Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not right.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true.

The fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect.

the nutcracker is not auscultatory.

that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong.

sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the gimlet is not a exteroception.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the gimlet is not a kind of a exteroception is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent2: the caseworm is not a kind of a communist. sent3: if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true. sent4: there is something such that it loads Levite and does not isolate dysphonia. sent5: the Briton is a stew and is not athletic if there is something such that it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent6: something is diamantine and it is frontal if it is not a presenter. sent7: the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent8: the Minuteman is not auscultatory if the lamphouse does not access blain. sent9: something that is both not a denominationalism and not auscultatory is not a kind of a exteroception. sent10: if there is something such that it isolates dysphonia the gimlet is a kind of a exteroception. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a exteroception that does not isolate dysphonia does not hold. sent12: if the Minuteman is not auscultatory the nutcracker is not a exteroception but it is a kind of a denominationalism. sent13: a non-communist thing is not indoor and is not a presenter. sent14: if the Briton is a stew it is phonogramic and it does not circumnavigate scrubbird. sent15: everything does circumnavigate dither and it does not circumnavigate featheredge. sent16: the Briton is not diamantine if the caseworm is diamantine. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia is false. sent18: if something is phonogramic but it does not circumnavigate scrubbird it does not access blain. sent19: there exists something such that that that it is auscultatory and it is not a exteroception is true is not right. sent20: the nutcracker is not auscultatory. sent21: the lamphouse does not access blain if the Briton does not access blain and it is not diamantine. sent22: the fact that if the nutcracker is not auscultatory then that the nutcracker does load Levite and it isolates dysphonia does not hold hold. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent20 -> int1: that the nutcracker does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does load Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not right.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is not incorrect then the fact that it loads Levite and it does not isolate dysphonia is not true.

If the fact that the nutcracker is not auscultatory is incorrect, then the fact that it loads Levite is not.

the gimlet is a exteroception if there exists something such that that it does load Levite and does not isolate dysphonia does not hold.

the Cheddar is a countrywoman.

sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia.

{A}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Cheddar is not a countrywoman.

¬{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Cheddar is a countrywoman. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope it is all.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cheddar is all.; sent3 -> int4: if the Cheddar is all the fact that it is a countrywoman is not wrong.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is headless and does not elope it is all.

It is all if something is headless.

the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia.

the Cheddar is a countrywoman.

sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia.

{A}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Cheddar is not a countrywoman.

¬{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Cheddar is a countrywoman. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope it is all.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cheddar is all.; sent3 -> int4: if the Cheddar is all the fact that it is a countrywoman is not wrong.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is headless and does not elope it is all.

It's all if something is headless and doesn't elope.

the chiropractor is a Malaysia.

the Cheddar is a countrywoman.

sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia.

{A}{aa}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Cheddar is not a countrywoman.

¬{A}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Cheddar is a countrywoman. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cheddar is a kind of headless thing that does not elope if the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent2: the chiropractor is a Malaysia. sent3: something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false. sent4: the chiropractor is not a Malaysia and it does not isolate brackishness if the buckle is not a bunchberry. sent5: if something is headless and does not elope it is all. sent6: the fact that something is not all hold if it is not a Malaysia. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope it is all.; sent1 & sent2 -> int2: the Cheddar is headless but it does not elope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cheddar is all.; sent3 -> int4: if the Cheddar is all the fact that it is a countrywoman is not wrong.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is headless and does not elope it is all.

It's all if something isn't headless and doesn't elope.

something is a countrywoman if that it is all is not false.

the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold.

sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst.

¬({C}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent2: {AB}{ab} sent3: ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: ({C}{cg} & {AO}{cg}) sent5: (x): {DI}x -> {ES}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {B}{es} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent9: {A}{aa} sent10: {AL}{aa} -> {II}{aa} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent12: {A}{dl} sent13: {B}{aa} sent14: {B}{df} sent15: {FK}{aa} sent16: {C}{at} sent17: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sheath isolates analyst.

{B}{ct}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: if the Crow is doric it is a letterpress.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Crow is a letterpress.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is doric then it is a letterpress.

If it is doric then it is a printing press.

the Crow is doric.

the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold.

sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst.

¬({C}{aa} & {B}{aa})

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent2: {AB}{ab} sent3: ¬({D}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: ({C}{cg} & {AO}{cg}) sent5: (x): {DI}x -> {ES}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {B}{es} sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) sent9: {A}{aa} sent10: {AL}{aa} -> {II}{aa} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent12: {A}{dl} sent13: {B}{aa} sent14: {B}{df} sent15: {FK}{aa} sent16: {C}{at} sent17: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sheath isolates analyst.

{B}{ct}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Crow is a kind of a letterpress and it isolates analyst does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not doric that it is a letterpress and does isolate analyst does not hold. sent2: The analyst does isolate Crow. sent3: if the fact that the kern is a collateral and it is doric is false then the Crow is not doric. sent4: the highboy is a letterpress that circumnavigates swish. sent5: if something is a dunker it is planetal. sent6: the Crow is a Orion. sent7: the fact that the escolar does isolate analyst is right. sent8: that something is not non-collateral and it is doric is not right if it does not isolate reading. sent9: the Crow is doric. sent10: if the Crow is abranchiate it is comparable. sent11: if something is doric then it is a letterpress. sent12: the oxcart is doric. sent13: the Crow does isolate analyst. sent14: the clipper does isolate analyst. sent15: the Crow is nonsyllabic. sent16: that the Buddhist is a letterpress is not false. sent17: if something is a kind of a letterpress that is not doric then it isolates analyst. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: if the Crow is doric it is a letterpress.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Crow is a letterpress.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if something is doric then it is a letterpress.

If it's doric then it's a letterpress.

the Crow does isolate analyst.

both the sentence and the caring happens.

sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = both the sentence and the caring happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sentencing happens is not false.; sent4 -> int2: the care happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens.

There are two things that happen, the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness.

that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing.

both the sentence and the caring happens.

sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = both the sentence and the caring happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sentencing happens is not false.; sent4 -> int2: the care happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens.

Both happen, the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness.

the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness.

both the sentence and the caring happens.

sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs.

({C} & {D})

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = both the sentence and the caring happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens. sent2: that the sentencing does not occur is prevented by the rehearsing. sent3: the sentence is triggered by the non-contrapuntalness. sent4: the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the sentencing happens is not false.; sent4 -> int2: the care happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness or both happens.

The rehearsing or the non-contrapuntalness happens.

the care and the circumnavigating lion-hunter occurs.

the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown.

sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the annoyance is a Peloponnese hold.

{B}{if}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the brickbat is a Peloponnese.; sent1 -> int2: if the brickbat is a kind of a Peloponnese it is a slowdown.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese.

The brickbat is a Peloponnese if the prefect is not non-Djiboutian.

the prefect is Djiboutian.

the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown.

sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic.

¬{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the annoyance is a Peloponnese hold.

{B}{if}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the brickbat is not a kind of a slowdown. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese. sent2: the prefect is a kind of a slowdown. sent3: the prefect is Djiboutian. sent4: if there is something such that that it is a Djiboutian that is not a kind of a Peloponnese is wrong the annoyance is a Peloponnese. sent5: if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese. sent6: the prefect is paleolithic. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the brickbat is a Peloponnese.; sent1 -> int2: if the brickbat is a kind of a Peloponnese it is a slowdown.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the prefect is not non-Djiboutian is not wrong then the brickbat is a Peloponnese.

The brickbat is a Peloponnese if the prefect is non-Djiboutian.

something is a slowdown if it is a kind of a Peloponnese.

that the fact that the arsonist is a kind of a vestal that is not a rounding is not true is right.

sent1: if the brim does not clothe then the fact that it is Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is not correct. sent2: the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide. sent3: if the glossarist is a vestal that the arsonist is a vestal and is a rounding does not hold. sent4: either the glossarist is anorectal or it is a kind of a phycology or both if there is something such that it is a phycology. sent5: if that the glossarist is an intensity hold it is a vestal. sent6: if the fact that something is not non-Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is false the fact that it is not a nifedipine hold. sent7: if either the glossarist is not a kind of a rounding or it is a vestal or both then the potentiation is a rounding. sent8: that the arsonist is a kind of an intensity but it is not a vestal is not right. sent9: the glossarist rounds. sent10: the brim does not clothe. sent11: the fact that the arsonist is a vestal and a rounding is not right. sent12: the arsonist is an intensity if it is a rounding. sent13: that if the glossarist is anorectal then the arsonist is an intensity is right. sent14: if the glossarist is a vestal then that the arsonist is both a vestal and not a rounding does not hold. sent15: something is a phycology and it does tickle if it is not a nifedipine.

¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the potentiation is rounding hold.

{D}{dk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the arsonist is a kind of a vestal that is not a rounding is not true is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the brim does not clothe then the fact that it is Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is not correct. sent2: the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide. sent3: if the glossarist is a vestal that the arsonist is a vestal and is a rounding does not hold. sent4: either the glossarist is anorectal or it is a kind of a phycology or both if there is something such that it is a phycology. sent5: if that the glossarist is an intensity hold it is a vestal. sent6: if the fact that something is not non-Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is false the fact that it is not a nifedipine hold. sent7: if either the glossarist is not a kind of a rounding or it is a vestal or both then the potentiation is a rounding. sent8: that the arsonist is a kind of an intensity but it is not a vestal is not right. sent9: the glossarist rounds. sent10: the brim does not clothe. sent11: the fact that the arsonist is a vestal and a rounding is not right. sent12: the arsonist is an intensity if it is a rounding. sent13: that if the glossarist is anorectal then the arsonist is an intensity is right. sent14: if the glossarist is a vestal then that the arsonist is both a vestal and not a rounding does not hold. sent15: something is a phycology and it does tickle if it is not a nifedipine. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide.

the glossarist is a kind of a Eastertide.

if the brim does not clothe then the fact that it is Dalmatian and it is fibrinous is not correct.

the auspices occurs.

sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{BD} sent2: (¬{FF} & ¬{CQ}) -> {HK} sent3: {F} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent4: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{FL} sent5: (¬{BS} & ¬{FI}) sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ({G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent11: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent12: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent13: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ¬{E}

PROVED

PROVED

the accessing profanity does not occur and the self-induction does not occur.

(¬{BD} & ¬{FL})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the auspices occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the accessing hardinggrass does not occur.

The accessing of hardinggrass doesn't happen.

the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur.

the auspices occurs.

sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{BD} sent2: (¬{FF} & ¬{CQ}) -> {HK} sent3: {F} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent4: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{FL} sent5: (¬{BS} & ¬{FI}) sent6: ¬{A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: ({G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent11: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent12: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent13: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent14: ¬{E}

PROVED

PROVED

the accessing profanity does not occur and the self-induction does not occur.

(¬{BD} & ¬{FL})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the auspices occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the accessing profanity does not occur if the fact that the Timoreseness does not occur and the auspices does not occur is not right. sent2: that the founder happens is caused by that the lend-lease does not occur and the intending does not occur. sent3: that the circumnavigating disarray happens brings about that the accessing hardinggrass occurs and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent4: if the accessing hardinggrass occurs but the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur then the self-induction does not occur. sent5: the nominal does not occur and the circumnavigating lay-up does not occur. sent6: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur. sent7: that the fact that the grappling and the Timorese happens is wrong is correct if that the circumnavigating disarray does not occur hold. sent8: the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur. sent9: that the Timorese does not occur and the auspices does not occur is incorrect if the grappling does not occur. sent10: if the hair-raiser and the shrubbiness occurs the circumnavigating disarray does not occur. sent11: if the Timoreseness does not occur then that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is not correct. sent12: that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur. sent13: the auspices does not occur if that that the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur and the accessing hardinggrass does not occur is correct is incorrect. sent14: the grappling does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the accessing hardinggrass does not occur.

The accessing of hardinggrass does not happen.

that the accessing hardinggrass does not occur and the circumnavigating first-nighter does not occur prevents that the auspices does not occur.

the whippoorwill does not isolate daze.

sent1: if the voicemail is a kind of a kyanite then that the whippoorwill does not isolate daze is not false. sent2: the fact that the voicemail is a kyanite and Mishnaic does not hold. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kyanite and is Mishnaic. sent4: everything is not capitular and circumnavigates extemporization. sent5: if the fact that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic is false the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic.

¬{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the iguanodon is not a kyanite.

¬{AA}{dt}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. ; $context$ = sent1: if the voicemail is a kind of a kyanite then that the whippoorwill does not isolate daze is not false. sent2: the fact that the voicemail is a kyanite and Mishnaic does not hold. sent3: there exists nothing that is a kyanite and is Mishnaic. sent4: everything is not capitular and circumnavigates extemporization. sent5: if the fact that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic is false the whippoorwill does not isolate daze. sent6: there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic does not hold.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic.

there exists nothing that is not a kyanite and is Mishnaic.

if the fact that the voicemail is not a kyanite but it is Mishnaic is false the whippoorwill does not isolate daze.

that the catcher is a kind of a gemination is true.

sent1: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization that is a cryostat the fact that the catcher is not a kind of a gemination is not false. sent2: if there exists something such that it does not circumnavigate Myrmidon the chimney is not hydrophilic. sent3: if the walloper does not possess then it is a cryostat and is not a gemination. sent4: the chimney is non-managerial and does not isolate Comte. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteate and it is not orthodontic does not hold. sent6: something does circumnavigate epiphora or it is not a kind of a bibliopole or both if it is orthodontic. sent7: the Myrmidon does not circumnavigate Myrmidon. sent8: the fact that the walloper is not a gemination hold if the chimney is managerial but it does not isolate Comte. sent9: the walloper is orthodontic if there is something such that that it is non-bracteate and orthodontic is false. sent10: the catcher is a kind of a fictionalization and is a gemination if that the walloper is not a kind of a gemination is not wrong. sent11: the chimney is not a gemination and it is not managerial. sent12: if something is not Jurassic it is a cryostat and it is carbonyl. sent13: if the walloper is not a fictionalization the catcher is a gemination and it is a fictionalization. sent14: the walloper is not managerial if the catcher is not a fictionalization and is not a gemination. sent15: if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial. sent16: something that is not hydrophilic is a fictionalization and possesses. sent17: the fact that the catcher is a fictionalization hold. sent18: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization the linkage is managerial.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the catcher is not a gemination.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the catcher is a kind of a gemination is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization that is a cryostat the fact that the catcher is not a kind of a gemination is not false. sent2: if there exists something such that it does not circumnavigate Myrmidon the chimney is not hydrophilic. sent3: if the walloper does not possess then it is a cryostat and is not a gemination. sent4: the chimney is non-managerial and does not isolate Comte. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it is not bracteate and it is not orthodontic does not hold. sent6: something does circumnavigate epiphora or it is not a kind of a bibliopole or both if it is orthodontic. sent7: the Myrmidon does not circumnavigate Myrmidon. sent8: the fact that the walloper is not a gemination hold if the chimney is managerial but it does not isolate Comte. sent9: the walloper is orthodontic if there is something such that that it is non-bracteate and orthodontic is false. sent10: the catcher is a kind of a fictionalization and is a gemination if that the walloper is not a kind of a gemination is not wrong. sent11: the chimney is not a gemination and it is not managerial. sent12: if something is not Jurassic it is a cryostat and it is carbonyl. sent13: if the walloper is not a fictionalization the catcher is a gemination and it is a fictionalization. sent14: the walloper is not managerial if the catcher is not a fictionalization and is not a gemination. sent15: if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial. sent16: something that is not hydrophilic is a fictionalization and possesses. sent17: the fact that the catcher is a fictionalization hold. sent18: if the chimney is a kind of a fictionalization the linkage is managerial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial.

if the fact that the catcher does not isolate Comte and it is not a gemination is right the chimney is not managerial.

if the walloper is not a fictionalization the catcher is a gemination and it is a fictionalization.

the accessing mold does not occur.

sent1: the epistemicness does not occur. sent2: the accessing mold does not occur if the inexcusableness occurs and the isolating sprig occurs. sent3: the isolating sprig occurs. sent4: the liberal happens. sent5: if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur. sent6: the amalgamativeness happens.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{DA} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {B} sent4: {EO} sent5: ({IC} & {IG}) -> ¬{DD} sent6: {AO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the accessing mold does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the epistemicness does not occur. sent2: the accessing mold does not occur if the inexcusableness occurs and the isolating sprig occurs. sent3: the isolating sprig occurs. sent4: the liberal happens. sent5: if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur. sent6: the amalgamativeness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur.

if the boarding and the acetylicness occurs then the trochaicness does not occur.

the accessing mold does not occur if the inexcusableness occurs and the isolating sprig occurs.

the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness.

sent1: something Romanizes if it is a Hemigalus. sent2: the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal. sent3: if something does Romanize it is a inauspiciousness.

{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the multiplexer does Romanize if it is a Hemigalus.

{IT}{dh} -> {A}{dh}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness. ; $context$ = sent1: something Romanizes if it is a Hemigalus. sent2: the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal. sent3: if something does Romanize it is a inauspiciousness. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the lady-slipper Romanizes.; sent3 -> int2: the lady-slipper is a inauspiciousness if it Romanizes.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal.

the lady-slipper does Romanize and it is not non-prenatal.

if something does Romanize it is a inauspiciousness.

the Sikh is not Einsteinian.

sent1: something is a intactness. sent2: if something is pineal then that it accesses sesame and does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is false. sent3: if there is something such that it is Einsteinian the Sikh is not a intactness. sent4: that the playmate is a angiography and pineal is incorrect if the bolt is not a petite. sent5: if something is a Trilisa then the fact that it is a intactness is not false. sent6: the mold is not Einsteinian. sent7: if the fact that the bolt accesses sesame but it does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is not true the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa. sent8: the reflation is a kind of a Trilisa if it does circumnavigate Tombaugh. sent9: the playmate is not pineal if that it is both a angiography and pineal does not hold. sent10: the garbageman is not a intactness. sent11: there is something such that it is affixal. sent12: the Sikh is not a intactness. sent13: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent14: the Sikh is not a intactness if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent15: something is pineal if it is a kind of a petite. sent16: the bolt is not a petite. sent17: the fact that something circumnavigates Tombaugh and accesses sesame is true if it is not pineal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a tightrope. sent19: if the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa the fact that the reflation is both not a intactness and affixal is false. sent20: if the playmate does circumnavigate Tombaugh the reflation circumnavigate Tombaugh.

¬{C}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Sikh is not non-Einsteinian.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Sikh is not Einsteinian. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a intactness. sent2: if something is pineal then that it accesses sesame and does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is false. sent3: if there is something such that it is Einsteinian the Sikh is not a intactness. sent4: that the playmate is a angiography and pineal is incorrect if the bolt is not a petite. sent5: if something is a Trilisa then the fact that it is a intactness is not false. sent6: the mold is not Einsteinian. sent7: if the fact that the bolt accesses sesame but it does not circumnavigate Tombaugh is not true the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa. sent8: the reflation is a kind of a Trilisa if it does circumnavigate Tombaugh. sent9: the playmate is not pineal if that it is both a angiography and pineal does not hold. sent10: the garbageman is not a intactness. sent11: there is something such that it is affixal. sent12: the Sikh is not a intactness. sent13: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent14: the Sikh is not a intactness if there exists something such that it is affixal. sent15: something is pineal if it is a kind of a petite. sent16: the bolt is not a petite. sent17: the fact that something circumnavigates Tombaugh and accesses sesame is true if it is not pineal. sent18: there exists something such that it is a tightrope. sent19: if the playmate is not a kind of a Trilisa the fact that the reflation is both not a intactness and affixal is false. sent20: if the playmate does circumnavigate Tombaugh the reflation circumnavigate Tombaugh. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent13 -> int1: the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is affixal.

there is something such that it is affixal.

the Sikh is not a intactness and it is not Einsteinian if there exists something such that it is affixal.

the alphavirus is a meteortropism.

sent1: that the alphavirus does complete but it does not sleep is not correct. sent2: if the ointment is tympanic but it is not a redcap the nature is tympanic. sent3: if the fact that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is false then it is not a redcap. sent4: something that does not sleep is not a kind of a meteortropism. sent5: if something is not critical it is not prenatal. sent6: the ointment is not questionable. sent7: the fact that the nature is a trinketry that is Boeotian is wrong. sent8: that the nature is a trinketry but it is not a meteortropism does not hold. sent9: the alphavirus is not surmountable if the lamb is not prenatal. sent10: if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct. sent11: the nature is indefeasible if something that is not a muscle is immunodeficient. sent12: if something does water it is tympanic. sent13: something loads conformity if it is tympanic. sent14: that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is not true. sent15: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a sleep that is not a meteortropism is incorrect the alphavirus is a trinketry. sent16: if the ointment is not questionable then it is a water and it is illegible. sent17: the crapaud does not muscle but it is immunodeficient. sent18: the lamb is a sleep. sent19: something does not sleep and is a kind of a angelim if it is not surmountable.

{B}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the alphavirus is not a kind of a meteortropism.

¬{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alphavirus is a meteortropism. ; $context$ = sent1: that the alphavirus does complete but it does not sleep is not correct. sent2: if the ointment is tympanic but it is not a redcap the nature is tympanic. sent3: if the fact that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is false then it is not a redcap. sent4: something that does not sleep is not a kind of a meteortropism. sent5: if something is not critical it is not prenatal. sent6: the ointment is not questionable. sent7: the fact that the nature is a trinketry that is Boeotian is wrong. sent8: that the nature is a trinketry but it is not a meteortropism does not hold. sent9: the alphavirus is not surmountable if the lamb is not prenatal. sent10: if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct. sent11: the nature is indefeasible if something that is not a muscle is immunodeficient. sent12: if something does water it is tympanic. sent13: something loads conformity if it is tympanic. sent14: that the ointment does not load crapaud and it does not circumnavigate descendant is not true. sent15: if there is something such that that it is a kind of a sleep that is not a meteortropism is incorrect the alphavirus is a trinketry. sent16: if the ointment is not questionable then it is a water and it is illegible. sent17: the crapaud does not muscle but it is immunodeficient. sent18: the lamb is a sleep. sent19: something does not sleep and is a kind of a angelim if it is not surmountable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct.

if the lamb does sleep that the nature is a kind of a trinketry and is not Boeotian is not correct.

the lamb is a sleep.

the Renaissance occurs.

sent1: the despite occurs. sent2: if the non-ritualness and the loading soma occurs then the extravagance does not occur. sent3: the preying does not occur but the despite occurs. sent4: the Renaissance happens if that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur is false. sent5: if the accessing four-poster occurs then the fact that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur does not hold. sent6: if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur. sent7: if the isolating popularity does not occur then the rustle and the accessing four-poster occurs.

{B}

sent1: {AB} sent2: (¬{N} & {CO}) -> ¬{HR} sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {B} sent5: {C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Renaissance happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Renaissance occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the despite occurs. sent2: if the non-ritualness and the loading soma occurs then the extravagance does not occur. sent3: the preying does not occur but the despite occurs. sent4: the Renaissance happens if that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur is false. sent5: if the accessing four-poster occurs then the fact that the Renaissance does not occur and the tolerating does not occur does not hold. sent6: if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur. sent7: if the isolating popularity does not occur then the rustle and the accessing four-poster occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur.

if not the preying but the despite occurs then the Renaissance does not occur.

the preying does not occur but the despite occurs.

there exists something such that if that it is not nonfissile is right then it is prosthetic.

sent1: a nonfissile thing is prosthetic.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: (x): {B}x -> {C}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is not nonfissile is right then it is prosthetic. ; $context$ = sent1: a nonfissile thing is prosthetic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the achene is a Wavell is correct.

sent1: the achene is a kind of a gun. sent2: something either is a Wavell or accesses Kachin or both if it is not a kind of a gun. sent3: if something is valent it is not a gun but a plural. sent4: if the achene guns it is not a Wavell.

{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the sclera is a kind of a Wavell.

{B}{cm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the achene is a Wavell is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the achene is a kind of a gun. sent2: something either is a Wavell or accesses Kachin or both if it is not a kind of a gun. sent3: if something is valent it is not a gun but a plural. sent4: if the achene guns it is not a Wavell. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the achene guns it is not a Wavell.

if the achene guns it is not a Wavell.

the achene is a kind of a gun.

the molindone does not consult.

sent1: if the molindone is a druidism the propylthiouracil is not a druidism. sent2: if the fact that something is macroeconomics is not incorrect then it is a druidism. sent3: the grisaille consults. sent4: if the molindone is a kind of a cockleshell then it does consult. sent5: if something that is not a by-election entertains the fact that the Dean does not load descendant is not incorrect. sent6: the Dean is not eosinophilic if there is something such that the fact that it is eosinophilic and it is not macroeconomics does not hold. sent7: the cardinalfish is not a druidism if that the saltpan is precordial and it is a kind of a druidism is not true. sent8: the fact that the hill is a kind of eosinophilic thing that is non-macroeconomics does not hold if that there is something such that it is not a druidism is right. sent9: something is not non-millenary or it is precordial or both if it does not load descendant. sent10: if the fact that either the LAN is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both is false the chevre does not unwind. sent11: something consults and is eosinophilic if it is not a druidism. sent12: there is nothing such that it is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both. sent13: the molindone is not non-eosinophilic. sent14: if something loads descendant or it does not entertain or both then it is non-millenary. sent15: there is something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent16: the hill is not a by-election and does entertain if there exists something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent17: the fact that something is precordial and it is a druidism is wrong if it is not a millenary. sent18: if the chevre does not unwind the oxidation is not a kind of a crotch and it is not inanimate. sent19: if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult. sent20: if the interoceptor is not a kind of a by-election then either the saltpan loads descendant or it does not entertain or both. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a crotch and not inanimate then the interoceptor is not a by-election.

¬{B}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the molindone does not consult.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the molindone does not consult. ; $context$ = sent1: if the molindone is a druidism the propylthiouracil is not a druidism. sent2: if the fact that something is macroeconomics is not incorrect then it is a druidism. sent3: the grisaille consults. sent4: if the molindone is a kind of a cockleshell then it does consult. sent5: if something that is not a by-election entertains the fact that the Dean does not load descendant is not incorrect. sent6: the Dean is not eosinophilic if there is something such that the fact that it is eosinophilic and it is not macroeconomics does not hold. sent7: the cardinalfish is not a druidism if that the saltpan is precordial and it is a kind of a druidism is not true. sent8: the fact that the hill is a kind of eosinophilic thing that is non-macroeconomics does not hold if that there is something such that it is not a druidism is right. sent9: something is not non-millenary or it is precordial or both if it does not load descendant. sent10: if the fact that either the LAN is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both is false the chevre does not unwind. sent11: something consults and is eosinophilic if it is not a druidism. sent12: there is nothing such that it is not disciplinary or it does not possess or both. sent13: the molindone is not non-eosinophilic. sent14: if something loads descendant or it does not entertain or both then it is non-millenary. sent15: there is something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent16: the hill is not a by-election and does entertain if there exists something such that it is a kind of a crotch. sent17: the fact that something is precordial and it is a druidism is wrong if it is not a millenary. sent18: if the chevre does not unwind the oxidation is not a kind of a crotch and it is not inanimate. sent19: if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult. sent20: if the interoceptor is not a kind of a by-election then either the saltpan loads descendant or it does not entertain or both. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a crotch and not inanimate then the interoceptor is not a by-election. ; $proof$ =

sent19 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult.

if the molindone is eosinophilic it does consult.

the molindone is not non-eosinophilic.

there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical.

sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive.

It is not productive if the lift circumnavigates lift and tarot does not hold.

that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold.

there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical.

sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive.

It's not productive if the lift circumnavigates lift and tarot doesn't hold.

the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive.

there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical.

sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical.

(Ex): (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does not access radiotelephone and is not astrophysical. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive. sent2: the calcium-cyanamide does not access radiotelephone if the lift is not productive. sent3: the calcium-cyanamide is acaulescent. sent4: that the lift circumnavigates lift and it does circumnavigate tarot does not hold. sent5: if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the lift circumnavigates lift and does circumnavigate tarot does not hold then it is not productive.

It is not productive if the lift circumnavigates lift and the tarot does not hold.

if something is a Hippotragus and it is acaulescent then it is not astrophysical.

the Parks is inalienable.

sent1: the petrifaction is a distortionist. sent2: the fixer-upper is inalienable if the petrifaction demulsifies. sent3: the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable. sent4: if the petrifaction is inalienable the Parks demulsifies. sent5: something is not unsanitary. sent6: something that does not isolate Jap is inalienable or does not demulsify or both. sent7: if something is inalienable then it does demulsify. sent8: something is inalienable if the fact that it is not inalienable and it does not access Kakatoe is not true. sent9: if the Parks is inalienable thing that does isolate Jap then the grindstone does not demulsify. sent10: if something does load casserole but it does not access Kakatoe it does not isolate Jap. sent11: there is nothing such that it is hyperemic and does not load casserole. sent12: the Parks loads casserole and it isolates Jap if the petrifaction is not hyperemic. sent13: the petrifaction is not hyperemic if the fact that the fact that the gossamer is semiparasitic and does not load sojourn hold is not true. sent14: the petrifaction does not demulsify. sent15: the Jap is not inalienable.

{A}{a}

sent1: {IO}{b} sent2: {B}{b} -> {A}{jc} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v ¬{B}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}x sent9: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{be} sent10: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent12: ¬{F}{b} -> ({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: ¬({G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent14: ¬{B}{b} sent15: ¬{A}{je}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

that the leadwort demulsifies is not incorrect.

{B}{hg}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Parks is inalienable. ; $context$ = sent1: the petrifaction is a distortionist. sent2: the fixer-upper is inalienable if the petrifaction demulsifies. sent3: the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable. sent4: if the petrifaction is inalienable the Parks demulsifies. sent5: something is not unsanitary. sent6: something that does not isolate Jap is inalienable or does not demulsify or both. sent7: if something is inalienable then it does demulsify. sent8: something is inalienable if the fact that it is not inalienable and it does not access Kakatoe is not true. sent9: if the Parks is inalienable thing that does isolate Jap then the grindstone does not demulsify. sent10: if something does load casserole but it does not access Kakatoe it does not isolate Jap. sent11: there is nothing such that it is hyperemic and does not load casserole. sent12: the Parks loads casserole and it isolates Jap if the petrifaction is not hyperemic. sent13: the petrifaction is not hyperemic if the fact that the fact that the gossamer is semiparasitic and does not load sojourn hold is not true. sent14: the petrifaction does not demulsify. sent15: the Jap is not inalienable. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Parks is inalienable.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the petrifaction demulsifies.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable.

the petrifaction demulsifies if the Parks is inalienable.

the petrifaction does not demulsify.

the reforestation happens.

sent1: if the supervention does not occur then that the non-lastness and the entree occurs is false. sent2: if the uplink happens the fact that that not the hamming but the reshuffle happens is false hold. sent3: that the equating disaster happens and the bleeping does not occur triggers that the parceling does not occur. sent4: the assembly does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the reheating does not occur. sent5: the philandering occurs. sent6: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs triggers that the supervention does not occur. sent7: either the equating potholer occurs or the resultant occurs or both if the researching does not occur. sent8: if the assembly does not occur both the uplink and the protecting happens. sent9: if the circumscription happens then that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs does not hold. sent10: the reheating does not occur if the exit does not occur. sent11: the larceny does not occur if the semioticness happens and/or the larceny does not occur. sent12: the reforestation does not occur if that that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs is true is not true. sent13: the equating disaster occurs and the bleeping does not occur if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the philandering occurs then the research does not occur and the demagoguery does not occur. sent15: if that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs is false then the non-semiotic occurs. sent16: the collectivization but not the exit occurs if the parcel does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the conformity does not occur is not incorrect then either the mineralness or the admitting matzo or both happens. sent18: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs is brought about by that the reshuffle does not occur. sent19: the conformity does not occur if that the equating potholer occurs is true. sent20: the reshuffling does not occur if that the hamming does not occur and the reshuffling happens is incorrect. sent21: the personification does not occur.

{C}

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{EA} & {GN}) sent2: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) sent3: ({N} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{M} sent4: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent5: {AF} sent6: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent7: ¬{AD} -> ({AB} v {AC}) sent8: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent9: {S} -> ¬({R} & ¬{Q}) sent10: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent11: ({Q} v ¬{P}) -> ¬{P} sent12: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent13: ¬{P} -> ({N} & ¬{O}) sent14: {AF} -> (¬{AD} & ¬{AE}) sent15: ¬({R} & ¬{Q}) -> {Q} sent16: ¬{M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent17: ¬{AA} -> ({T} v {U}) sent18: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent19: {AB} -> ¬{AA} sent20: ¬(¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent21: ¬{B}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that not the last but the entree happens does not hold.

¬(¬{EA} & {GN})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reforestation happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the supervention does not occur then that the non-lastness and the entree occurs is false. sent2: if the uplink happens the fact that that not the hamming but the reshuffle happens is false hold. sent3: that the equating disaster happens and the bleeping does not occur triggers that the parceling does not occur. sent4: the assembly does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the reheating does not occur. sent5: the philandering occurs. sent6: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs triggers that the supervention does not occur. sent7: either the equating potholer occurs or the resultant occurs or both if the researching does not occur. sent8: if the assembly does not occur both the uplink and the protecting happens. sent9: if the circumscription happens then that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs does not hold. sent10: the reheating does not occur if the exit does not occur. sent11: the larceny does not occur if the semioticness happens and/or the larceny does not occur. sent12: the reforestation does not occur if that that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs is true is not true. sent13: the equating disaster occurs and the bleeping does not occur if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the philandering occurs then the research does not occur and the demagoguery does not occur. sent15: if that the delivery and the non-semioticness occurs is false then the non-semiotic occurs. sent16: the collectivization but not the exit occurs if the parcel does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the conformity does not occur is not incorrect then either the mineralness or the admitting matzo or both happens. sent18: that the reforestation occurs and the personification occurs is brought about by that the reshuffle does not occur. sent19: the conformity does not occur if that the equating potholer occurs is true. sent20: the reshuffling does not occur if that the hamming does not occur and the reshuffling happens is incorrect. sent21: the personification does not occur. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the supervention does not occur and the personification happens.; assump1 -> int1: the personification occurs.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs does not hold.; sent12 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the personification does not occur.

the personification does not occur.

the reforestation does not occur if that that the supervention does not occur and the personification occurs is true is not true.

there exists something such that it is a gumdrop and it is inconsiderable.

sent1: the stearin is terpsichorean. sent2: the turnover is inconsiderable and it is a diaphone. sent3: the stearin swabs rear. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a conjuncture and it is a kind of a vinifera. sent5: if there are purposeless things the stripper is a kind of liliaceous a gumdrop. sent6: the stearin equates gleba. sent7: the stearin is a polemics. sent8: the ironing is purposeless. sent9: the Vietnamese is inconsiderable. sent10: the stearin is inconsiderable. sent11: something is a gumdrop. sent12: there is something such that that it forwards and it is a ballot hold. sent13: the dibucaine is a kind of a gumdrop. sent14: the crocolite does admit outrider and it is sternutatory. sent15: the objectification is a gumdrop. sent16: the taxidermist is Malawian and it is inconsiderable.

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

sent1: {AK}{a} sent2: ({B}{ec} & {F}{ec}) sent3: {FE}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({R}x & {C}x) sent5: (x): {D}x -> ({JG}{dj} & {A}{dj}) sent6: {CJ}{a} sent7: {FD}{a} sent8: {D}{b} sent9: {B}{bq} sent10: {B}{a} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (Ex): ({EB}x & {IC}x) sent13: {A}{eh} sent14: ({FC}{ii} & {GL}{ii}) sent15: {A}{br} sent16: ({IN}{ct} & {B}{ct})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the stripper is liliaceous and it is a repute.

({JG}{dj} & {EO}{dj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a gumdrop and it is inconsiderable. ; $context$ = sent1: the stearin is terpsichorean. sent2: the turnover is inconsiderable and it is a diaphone. sent3: the stearin swabs rear. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a conjuncture and it is a kind of a vinifera. sent5: if there are purposeless things the stripper is a kind of liliaceous a gumdrop. sent6: the stearin equates gleba. sent7: the stearin is a polemics. sent8: the ironing is purposeless. sent9: the Vietnamese is inconsiderable. sent10: the stearin is inconsiderable. sent11: something is a gumdrop. sent12: there is something such that that it forwards and it is a ballot hold. sent13: the dibucaine is a kind of a gumdrop. sent14: the crocolite does admit outrider and it is sternutatory. sent15: the objectification is a gumdrop. sent16: the taxidermist is Malawian and it is inconsiderable. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the stearin swabs rear.

the stearin swabs rear.

the objectification is a gumdrop.

the keeping happens.

sent1: the chemoreceptiveness occurs. sent2: if the exenteration does not occur then the swabbing privacy happens. sent3: the admitting professionalization does not occur if that that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is false is true. sent4: that the admitting professionalization and the equating Crane happens triggers that the serigraphy does not occur. sent5: if the serigraphy does not occur then that the exenteration does not occur and the swabbing privacy does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is incorrect if the reactiveness happens. sent7: if the exenteration occurs then the keeping occurs. sent8: the folding occurs. sent9: that the equating Polish happens is not wrong. sent10: if the swabbing privacy happens the thermodynamicsness occurs. sent11: the fact that not the swabbing privacy but the keep occurs does not hold if that the exenteration does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: that the flashing does not occur brings about that the equating Crane and the parodying happens. sent13: that the flashing happens is prevented by the non-prismaticness. sent14: the megillah and the simulating burner happens. sent15: the swabbing privacy occurs. sent16: the exenteration does not occur if the admitting professionalization does not occur and the serigraphy does not occur. sent17: that the pilferage does not occur is prevented by that the Australian occurs. sent18: the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs. sent19: the admitting professionalization happens.

{C}

sent1: {BJ} sent2: ¬{B} -> {A} sent3: ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent4: ({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: {K} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent7: {B} -> {C} sent8: {JE} sent9: {FE} sent10: {A} -> {O} sent11: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent12: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent13: ¬{I} -> ¬{H} sent14: ({AN} & {HN}) sent15: {A} sent16: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent17: {IJ} -> {HS} sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: {E}

PROVED

PROVED

that the keeping does not occur is correct.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the keeping happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the chemoreceptiveness occurs. sent2: if the exenteration does not occur then the swabbing privacy happens. sent3: the admitting professionalization does not occur if that that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is false is true. sent4: that the admitting professionalization and the equating Crane happens triggers that the serigraphy does not occur. sent5: if the serigraphy does not occur then that the exenteration does not occur and the swabbing privacy does not occur does not hold. sent6: that the parodying does not occur and the equating Crane does not occur is incorrect if the reactiveness happens. sent7: if the exenteration occurs then the keeping occurs. sent8: the folding occurs. sent9: that the equating Polish happens is not wrong. sent10: if the swabbing privacy happens the thermodynamicsness occurs. sent11: the fact that not the swabbing privacy but the keep occurs does not hold if that the exenteration does not occur is not incorrect. sent12: that the flashing does not occur brings about that the equating Crane and the parodying happens. sent13: that the flashing happens is prevented by the non-prismaticness. sent14: the megillah and the simulating burner happens. sent15: the swabbing privacy occurs. sent16: the exenteration does not occur if the admitting professionalization does not occur and the serigraphy does not occur. sent17: that the pilferage does not occur is prevented by that the Australian occurs. sent18: the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs. sent19: the admitting professionalization happens. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: that the exenteration happens is not false.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs.

the swabbing privacy occurs and the exenteration occurs.

if the exenteration occurs then the keeping occurs.

the pesticide is a Serra.

sent1: the roadbook is a kind of a down-bow and it is megalithic. sent2: if the hunk is not an airbus the roadbook is not a naloxone. sent3: the fact that the antidepressant is a kind of a separate is correct if there is something such that the fact that it does equate duplicity and it is diametric is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a Serra and it is a naloxone is incorrect. sent5: if the roadbook is a kind of a naloxone then the pesticide is a Serra. sent6: the roadbook is an airbus. sent7: if that the coulisse is both not megalithic and not a down-bow does not hold the fact that the roadbook is a down-bow hold. sent8: if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a naloxone and is a Serra is not true. sent10: the roadbook is a Serra if something is not a kind of a naloxone. sent11: if something is not gestational but alimentative then the hunk is not a splice. sent12: something does not simulate requiescat if the fact that it is a down-bow is true. sent13: if something is a kind of a cubit that it does not simulate requiescat and is a kind of a naloxone does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it is non-gestational thing that is alimentative. sent15: the extinguisher is a kind of a Serra if there is something such that that it is a Hassel and a Skinnerian does not hold. sent16: something is both a naloxone and a Serra. sent17: if there exists something such that the fact that it does separate and it is a galangal does not hold the roadbook is a naloxone. sent18: the roadbook is a naloxone if there exists something such that it does not separate. sent19: something does separate and is a galangal. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of an interrogation and it is postexilic is incorrect the pesticide is a naloxone.

{B}{b}

sent1: ({F}{a} & {G}{a}) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({IN}x & {FR}x) -> {AA}{hd} sent4: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: {E}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {F}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{E}x v ¬{D}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): (¬{J}x & {K}x) -> ¬{H}{c} sent12: (x): {F}x -> ¬{C}x sent13: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent14: (Ex): (¬{J}x & {K}x) sent15: (x): ¬({IF}x & {BD}x) -> {B}{k} sent16: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent17: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {A}{a} sent19: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent20: (x): ¬({GH}x & {FM}x) -> {A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pesticide is not a Serra.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pesticide is a Serra. ; $context$ = sent1: the roadbook is a kind of a down-bow and it is megalithic. sent2: if the hunk is not an airbus the roadbook is not a naloxone. sent3: the fact that the antidepressant is a kind of a separate is correct if there is something such that the fact that it does equate duplicity and it is diametric is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a Serra and it is a naloxone is incorrect. sent5: if the roadbook is a kind of a naloxone then the pesticide is a Serra. sent6: the roadbook is an airbus. sent7: if that the coulisse is both not megalithic and not a down-bow does not hold the fact that the roadbook is a down-bow hold. sent8: if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a naloxone and is a Serra is not true. sent10: the roadbook is a Serra if something is not a kind of a naloxone. sent11: if something is not gestational but alimentative then the hunk is not a splice. sent12: something does not simulate requiescat if the fact that it is a down-bow is true. sent13: if something is a kind of a cubit that it does not simulate requiescat and is a kind of a naloxone does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that it is non-gestational thing that is alimentative. sent15: the extinguisher is a kind of a Serra if there is something such that that it is a Hassel and a Skinnerian does not hold. sent16: something is both a naloxone and a Serra. sent17: if there exists something such that the fact that it does separate and it is a galangal does not hold the roadbook is a naloxone. sent18: the roadbook is a naloxone if there exists something such that it does not separate. sent19: something does separate and is a galangal. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of an interrogation and it is postexilic is incorrect the pesticide is a naloxone. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit.

if something is not a splice it is not an airbus and/or it is not a cubit.

if something is not gestational but alimentative then the hunk is not a splice.

that the antisyphilitic is a frequency hold.

sent1: the antisyphilitic is a frequency if that the fact that the Labour is a kind of non-blinded thing that does not admit fatherliness hold is incorrect. sent2: if something equates shamefacedness it is not a kind of a blinded or it is not a Burundi or both. sent3: the fact that the hunk does not admit fatherliness and is not a frequency is incorrect if the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent4: if the Labour is blinded then the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent5: if something is not a Charleroi the fact that it does equate shamefacedness and it does equate handoff is not incorrect. sent6: the antisyphilitic is a blinded if the Labour is a frequency. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a retainer and does not simulate Polystichum then the Labour is not a kind of a Charleroi. sent8: if the fact that something is a kind of a frequency and is a resurrection is false it is not a kind of a frequency. sent9: the fact that the Labour is not a blinded and it does not admit fatherliness does not hold if the hunk does admit fatherliness. sent10: if something is a Burundi that is blinded it is not a frequency. sent11: the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection. sent12: the hunk does admit fatherliness if the fact that that the antisyphilitic is not a kind of a resurrection and is not a kind of a frequency is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the hunk is a frequency then the fact that the antisyphilitic does not admit fatherliness and is a frequency does not hold. sent14: the hunk is a kind of a resurrection if the fact that the antisyphilitic is not a frequency and does not admit fatherliness is not right. sent15: the hunk is a resurrection. sent16: that the sprout is a kind of a bastinado that does not admit fatherliness is incorrect. sent17: the steward is a filly. sent18: that the prisoner is not a kind of a retainer and it does not simulate Polystichum hold if the steward is a filly. sent19: the fact that the antisyphilitic is a frequency and it is a resurrection is not correct if the hunk does not admit fatherliness.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Labour is a resurrection.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the antisyphilitic is a frequency hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the antisyphilitic is a frequency if that the fact that the Labour is a kind of non-blinded thing that does not admit fatherliness hold is incorrect. sent2: if something equates shamefacedness it is not a kind of a blinded or it is not a Burundi or both. sent3: the fact that the hunk does not admit fatherliness and is not a frequency is incorrect if the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent4: if the Labour is blinded then the antisyphilitic is a frequency. sent5: if something is not a Charleroi the fact that it does equate shamefacedness and it does equate handoff is not incorrect. sent6: the antisyphilitic is a blinded if the Labour is a frequency. sent7: if there is something such that it is not a retainer and does not simulate Polystichum then the Labour is not a kind of a Charleroi. sent8: if the fact that something is a kind of a frequency and is a resurrection is false it is not a kind of a frequency. sent9: the fact that the Labour is not a blinded and it does not admit fatherliness does not hold if the hunk does admit fatherliness. sent10: if something is a Burundi that is blinded it is not a frequency. sent11: the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection. sent12: the hunk does admit fatherliness if the fact that that the antisyphilitic is not a kind of a resurrection and is not a kind of a frequency is not wrong is not correct. sent13: if the hunk is a frequency then the fact that the antisyphilitic does not admit fatherliness and is a frequency does not hold. sent14: the hunk is a kind of a resurrection if the fact that the antisyphilitic is not a frequency and does not admit fatherliness is not right. sent15: the hunk is a resurrection. sent16: that the sprout is a kind of a bastinado that does not admit fatherliness is incorrect. sent17: the steward is a filly. sent18: that the prisoner is not a kind of a retainer and it does not simulate Polystichum hold if the steward is a filly. sent19: the fact that the antisyphilitic is a frequency and it is a resurrection is not correct if the hunk does not admit fatherliness. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection.

the hunk is a frequency if the antisyphilitic is a kind of a resurrection.

if there is something such that it is not a retainer and does not simulate Polystichum then the Labour is not a kind of a Charleroi.

the encumbrance is not a deerstalker.

sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the encumbrance is a tartlet.

{AA}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the encumbrance is not a deerstalker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet but it does not equate musher is wrong.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber.

The mystic does not equate musher with a kind of tuber.

the cuspidation is a tuber.

the encumbrance is not a deerstalker.

sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the encumbrance is a tartlet.

{AA}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the encumbrance is not a deerstalker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber then the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent2: that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber. sent3: the fact that the mystic is a tartlet and it equates musher is incorrect. sent4: something is a tartlet and is a tuber if the fact that it is not a deerstalker is true. sent5: if the fact that the mystic does equate musher is right then the encumbrance is not a kind of a deerstalker. sent6: that the guardrail is not a deerstalker hold. sent7: there is nothing such that it is not biosystematic and it homes. sent8: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a paca is not incorrect. sent9: the mystic is not a tuber. sent10: if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold. sent11: the cuspidation is a tuber. sent12: the fact that the mystic is a deerstalker and it does equate musher is not correct. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the mystic is a kind of a tartlet but it does not equate musher is wrong.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of a tuber.

The mystic doesn't mean musher is false if the cuspidation is a kind of tuber.

if that the mystic is a tartlet and does not equate musher is wrong then that the encumbrance is not a deerstalker hold.

the names does not swab glyceryl.

sent1: if the Bangladeshi does not simulate question then the fact that it does not equate otoplasty is not wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap the names does swab glyceryl. sent3: either the names does not equate Apidae or it is not a succade or both if something does not swab glyceryl. sent4: if that something is not olfactory and it does not chondrify is not right it does not swab attendant. sent5: the argentinosaur does not toggle or it is a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent6: the argentinosaur is a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap. sent7: the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap. sent8: that the Bangladeshi is non-olfactory thing that does not chondrify is not correct if the fact that it does not equate otoplasty hold. sent9: if the fact that something swabs glyceryl and it is a frogfish is false then it does not swabs glyceryl. sent10: there is something such that either it is a toggle or it is not a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent11: the fact that something swabs glyceryl and is a frogfish is not correct if the fact that it is saponaceous is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not swab attendant the echelon is not saponaceous. sent13: the Bangladeshi does not simulate question.

¬{A}{a}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

something does not equate Apidae and/or is not a kind of a succade.

(Ex): (¬{DO}x v ¬{T}x)

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the names does not swab glyceryl. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Bangladeshi does not simulate question then the fact that it does not equate otoplasty is not wrong. sent2: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap the names does swab glyceryl. sent3: either the names does not equate Apidae or it is not a succade or both if something does not swab glyceryl. sent4: if that something is not olfactory and it does not chondrify is not right it does not swab attendant. sent5: the argentinosaur does not toggle or it is a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent6: the argentinosaur is a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap. sent7: the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap. sent8: that the Bangladeshi is non-olfactory thing that does not chondrify is not correct if the fact that it does not equate otoplasty hold. sent9: if the fact that something swabs glyceryl and it is a frogfish is false then it does not swabs glyceryl. sent10: there is something such that either it is a toggle or it is not a kind of a gingersnap or both. sent11: the fact that something swabs glyceryl and is a frogfish is not correct if the fact that it is saponaceous is wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it does not swab attendant the echelon is not saponaceous. sent13: the Bangladeshi does not simulate question. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not a toggle and/or is not a gingersnap.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap.

the argentinosaur does not toggle and/or it is not a kind of a gingersnap.

if there is something such that it is not a kind of a toggle and/or it is not a gingersnap the names does swab glyceryl.

the godwit does not swab hopscotch.

sent1: the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham. sent2: that the biteplate is a predilection is true if the fact that the godwit is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both is right. sent3: the godwit does not swab hopscotch if the biteplate is organismal. sent4: the biteplate is organismal if the fact that the ECF is not penumbral and/or is an intervention does not hold. sent5: something swabs kickback if the fact that it does not boogie is not wrong. sent6: that something does not admit Urd and is not a MSH does not hold if it swabs kickback. sent7: something swabs kickback if it does not swab ineluctability. sent8: either something is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both if it does equate Transportation. sent9: if the biteplate is a kind of a predilection it does not swab hopscotch and does not admit Grahame. sent10: the lister is not a Abraham. sent11: the godwit equates Transportation if there is something such that the fact that it does not admit Urd and is not a kind of a MSH does not hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the blooming is organismal.

{A}{eb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the godwit does not swab hopscotch. ; $context$ = sent1: the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham. sent2: that the biteplate is a predilection is true if the fact that the godwit is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both is right. sent3: the godwit does not swab hopscotch if the biteplate is organismal. sent4: the biteplate is organismal if the fact that the ECF is not penumbral and/or is an intervention does not hold. sent5: something swabs kickback if the fact that it does not boogie is not wrong. sent6: that something does not admit Urd and is not a MSH does not hold if it swabs kickback. sent7: something swabs kickback if it does not swab ineluctability. sent8: either something is not a predilection or it does not admit thermograph or both if it does equate Transportation. sent9: if the biteplate is a kind of a predilection it does not swab hopscotch and does not admit Grahame. sent10: the lister is not a Abraham. sent11: the godwit equates Transportation if there is something such that the fact that it does not admit Urd and is not a kind of a MSH does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham.

the lister does not swab ineluctability or it does not boogie or both if it is not a kind of a Abraham.

the biteplate is organismal if the fact that the ECF is not penumbral and/or is an intervention does not hold.

there exists something such that if it is not a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae does not hold.

sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Isere then that it is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is incorrect is not wrong. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a congregation but it is a kind of a African is not right if it is promotional. sent3: if something swabs butacaine then the fact that it is not pudendal and it is multiple is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not dissimilar and is agonadal is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not nonastringent and it is a kind of a privacy is not right. sent6: that something is not a kind of a British but it is a bovine if it is not a yottabyte is true. sent7: the fact that something does not fry and is a Pinctada is not true if it does not reseat. sent8: something is not a surcharge and is a needlefish if it does not simulate. sent9: there is something such that if it does swab Anethum then that it is not a glance and it is a kind of a frijol does not hold. sent10: the fact that the Shiite is not pudendal but a Sillaginidae is false if it does not admit shutter. sent11: if that the Parks does not equate custody is not wrong then the fact that that it is uvular and it is a kind of a truck is correct does not hold. sent12: if the fact that something is not a Erythronium is not incorrect then the fact that it is a kind of a Djiboutian that is myocardial is not correct. sent13: if the oxyhemoglobin is not a four-in-hand then it is not a Isere and is a proconsulship. sent14: if the Parks swabs Shiite then that it is not a kind of a truck and it is Jamesian is not right. sent15: the fact that the Parks is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is wrong if it is not a kind of a Isere. sent16: if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right. sent17: that there exists something such that if it is a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae is false hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {IJ}x -> ¬(¬{IR}x & {DH}x) sent3: (x): {CJ}x -> ¬(¬{DR}x & {GJ}x) sent4: (Ex): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{AP}x & {HD}x) sent5: (Ex): {DG}x -> ¬(¬{DD}x & {HI}x) sent6: (x): ¬{JD}x -> (¬{DN}x & {JC}x) sent7: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬(¬{EC}x & {GT}x) sent8: (x): ¬{DF}x -> (¬{GC}x & {ID}x) sent9: (Ex): {BR}x -> ¬(¬{BI}x & {CC}x) sent10: ¬{CP}{gi} -> ¬(¬{DR}{gi} & {AB}{gi}) sent11: ¬{GD}{aa} -> ¬({M}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{BO}x -> ¬({DL}x & {AR}x) sent13: ¬{DT}{br} -> (¬{A}{br} & {EP}{br}) sent14: {FR}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {T}{aa}) sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{FL}x -> ¬({HO}x & {DS}x) sent17: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a Isere then that it is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is incorrect is not wrong. sent2: the fact that something is not a kind of a congregation but it is a kind of a African is not right if it is promotional. sent3: if something swabs butacaine then the fact that it is not pudendal and it is multiple is not right. sent4: there exists something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not dissimilar and is agonadal is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that if it is civics the fact that it is not nonastringent and it is a kind of a privacy is not right. sent6: that something is not a kind of a British but it is a bovine if it is not a yottabyte is true. sent7: the fact that something does not fry and is a Pinctada is not true if it does not reseat. sent8: something is not a surcharge and is a needlefish if it does not simulate. sent9: there is something such that if it does swab Anethum then that it is not a glance and it is a kind of a frijol does not hold. sent10: the fact that the Shiite is not pudendal but a Sillaginidae is false if it does not admit shutter. sent11: if that the Parks does not equate custody is not wrong then the fact that that it is uvular and it is a kind of a truck is correct does not hold. sent12: if the fact that something is not a Erythronium is not incorrect then the fact that it is a kind of a Djiboutian that is myocardial is not correct. sent13: if the oxyhemoglobin is not a four-in-hand then it is not a Isere and is a proconsulship. sent14: if the Parks swabs Shiite then that it is not a kind of a truck and it is Jamesian is not right. sent15: the fact that the Parks is a truck and it is a Sillaginidae is wrong if it is not a kind of a Isere. sent16: if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right. sent17: that there exists something such that if it is a Isere the fact that it does not truck and it is a kind of a Sillaginidae is false hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right.

if something does not mambo the fact that it is a hair that is an exigency is not right.

that something is not a kind of a British but it is a bovine if it is not a yottabyte is true.

the fumitory is not a chime.

sent1: the turning does not reorient. sent2: if the turning is not a Ostraciidae it does not reorient and does not confabulate. sent3: that the fumitory is not a kind of a Ostraciidae is true. sent4: there is something such that it reorients and it does not confabulate. sent5: there is something such that it does not reorient. sent6: if something that does not reorient does not confabulate the fumitory is not a chime. sent7: something that is a simperer is a sprat. sent8: if the fact that the turning is not a Ostraciidae is true it does not reorient. sent9: there is something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold then the scone is a kind of a simperer. sent11: the fumitory is a chime if the fact that the turning is not a kind of a chime and/or it is a kind of a Ostraciidae is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it does not confabulate. sent13: there exists something such that it does not confabulate and it is not a Ostraciidae. sent14: there is something such that it is not a chime and it does confabulate. sent15: if something is a kind of a sprat it is a perfidy. sent16: if something is eccentric that it is not a chime or is a Ostraciidae or both is not correct. sent17: the turning does not reorient and does not equate Oriental. sent18: something does not reorient and confabulates. sent19: the turning is not a chime if the fact that the fumitory is not eccentric and it is not a Ostraciidae does not hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the turning is not a chime.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fumitory is not a chime. ; $context$ = sent1: the turning does not reorient. sent2: if the turning is not a Ostraciidae it does not reorient and does not confabulate. sent3: that the fumitory is not a kind of a Ostraciidae is true. sent4: there is something such that it reorients and it does not confabulate. sent5: there is something such that it does not reorient. sent6: if something that does not reorient does not confabulate the fumitory is not a chime. sent7: something that is a simperer is a sprat. sent8: if the fact that the turning is not a Ostraciidae is true it does not reorient. sent9: there is something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is apophatic and it is universalistic does not hold then the scone is a kind of a simperer. sent11: the fumitory is a chime if the fact that the turning is not a kind of a chime and/or it is a kind of a Ostraciidae is wrong. sent12: there exists something such that it does not confabulate. sent13: there exists something such that it does not confabulate and it is not a Ostraciidae. sent14: there is something such that it is not a chime and it does confabulate. sent15: if something is a kind of a sprat it is a perfidy. sent16: if something is eccentric that it is not a chime or is a Ostraciidae or both is not correct. sent17: the turning does not reorient and does not equate Oriental. sent18: something does not reorient and confabulates. sent19: the turning is not a chime if the fact that the fumitory is not eccentric and it is not a Ostraciidae does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the turning does not reorient.

the turning does not reorient.

there exists something such that it does not confabulate and it is not a Ostraciidae.

the mortification is not anamnestic.

sent1: that the innocent is not anamnestic hold if that the mortification is not off-site and is not a kind of a streptolysin is false. sent2: if something is not a Hieracium it is a streptolysin. sent3: if that the innocent is not a streptolysin and it does not equate mooneye does not hold the stoneware is not off-site. sent4: if the innocent is a streptolysin then that the stoneware is not a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent5: the mortification is not a streptolysin if the fact that the innocent is not anamnestic and is not a Hieracium is not true. sent6: the innocent is off-site and/or it is not a kind of a Hieracium. sent7: the fact that the stoneware does not equate mooneye and is not anamnestic does not hold. sent8: if the innocent is a kind of a streptolysin the fact that the stoneware is a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is not correct. sent9: something equates mooneye and it is a kind of a streptolysin if it is not a intoxicant. sent10: if the mortification is a Hieracium and/or it is not a kind of a streptolysin then it is anamnestic. sent11: that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong. sent12: that the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent13: the mortification is not anamnestic if the fact that the stoneware is not a kind of a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent14: the innocent either is off-site or is a Hieracium or both. sent15: if the stoneware is a streptolysin then the mortification is anamnestic. sent16: if either the innocent is a streptolysin or it does not equate mooneye or both it is off-site. sent17: the stoneware is a Hieracium if it is not a streptolysin. sent18: something is a Hieracium if it is anamnestic or it is not off-site or both.

¬{A}{b}

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent3: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent4: {B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent8: {B}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent10: ({AB}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent12: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent14: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent15: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: ({B}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent17: ¬{B}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent18: (x): ({A}x v ¬{AA}x) -> {AB}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the mortification is anamnestic.

{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mortification is not anamnestic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the innocent is not anamnestic hold if that the mortification is not off-site and is not a kind of a streptolysin is false. sent2: if something is not a Hieracium it is a streptolysin. sent3: if that the innocent is not a streptolysin and it does not equate mooneye does not hold the stoneware is not off-site. sent4: if the innocent is a streptolysin then that the stoneware is not a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent5: the mortification is not a streptolysin if the fact that the innocent is not anamnestic and is not a Hieracium is not true. sent6: the innocent is off-site and/or it is not a kind of a Hieracium. sent7: the fact that the stoneware does not equate mooneye and is not anamnestic does not hold. sent8: if the innocent is a kind of a streptolysin the fact that the stoneware is a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is not correct. sent9: something equates mooneye and it is a kind of a streptolysin if it is not a intoxicant. sent10: if the mortification is a Hieracium and/or it is not a kind of a streptolysin then it is anamnestic. sent11: that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong. sent12: that the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin that does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent13: the mortification is not anamnestic if the fact that the stoneware is not a kind of a streptolysin and does not equate mooneye is wrong. sent14: the innocent either is off-site or is a Hieracium or both. sent15: if the stoneware is a streptolysin then the mortification is anamnestic. sent16: if either the innocent is a streptolysin or it does not equate mooneye or both it is off-site. sent17: the stoneware is a Hieracium if it is not a streptolysin. sent18: something is a Hieracium if it is anamnestic or it is not off-site or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong.

that the mortification is not anamnestic if the stoneware is a kind of a streptolysin is not wrong.

if the mortification is a Hieracium and/or it is not a kind of a streptolysin then it is anamnestic.

the fact that the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both is false.

sent1: if the fact that the simulating gamma does not occur or the consecration does not occur or both does not hold the equating armchair does not occur. sent2: if the equating armchair does not occur both the admitting drey and the equating prominence occurs. sent3: if the brachialness does not occur then both the expedient and the equating xenotime happens. sent4: the admitting Triangulum happens if the Polynesian and the non-unclearedness occurs. sent5: the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong. sent6: the sub-test does not occur if the admitting Triangulum occurs. sent7: the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both if the admitting bunchberry occurs. sent8: that the simulating gamma does not occur and/or the consecration does not occur is false if the equating xenotime happens. sent9: if that both the antheridialness and the non-autoplasticness occurs is not correct the penumbralness does not occur. sent10: that the hypodermalness does not occur results in that the doricness occurs. sent11: if the sub-test does not occur that the antheridialness but not the autoplasticness happens does not hold. sent12: if the penumbralness does not occur both the admitting bunchberry and the aversiveness occurs. sent13: the fact that the penumbralness does not occur but the admitting bunchberry happens does not hold. sent14: that the Polynesian and the clearedness occurs is brought about by that the Reformation does not occur. sent15: the Reformation is prevented by that the admitting drey happens.

¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

either the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both.

(¬{AA} v ¬{AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the simulating gamma does not occur or the consecration does not occur or both does not hold the equating armchair does not occur. sent2: if the equating armchair does not occur both the admitting drey and the equating prominence occurs. sent3: if the brachialness does not occur then both the expedient and the equating xenotime happens. sent4: the admitting Triangulum happens if the Polynesian and the non-unclearedness occurs. sent5: the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong. sent6: the sub-test does not occur if the admitting Triangulum occurs. sent7: the swabbing semivowel does not occur or the geocentricness does not occur or both if the admitting bunchberry occurs. sent8: that the simulating gamma does not occur and/or the consecration does not occur is false if the equating xenotime happens. sent9: if that both the antheridialness and the non-autoplasticness occurs is not correct the penumbralness does not occur. sent10: that the hypodermalness does not occur results in that the doricness occurs. sent11: if the sub-test does not occur that the antheridialness but not the autoplasticness happens does not hold. sent12: if the penumbralness does not occur both the admitting bunchberry and the aversiveness occurs. sent13: the fact that the penumbralness does not occur but the admitting bunchberry happens does not hold. sent14: that the Polynesian and the clearedness occurs is brought about by that the Reformation does not occur. sent15: the Reformation is prevented by that the admitting drey happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong.

the aversiveness does not occur if the fact that not the penumbralness but the admitting bunchberry happens is wrong.

the fact that the penumbralness does not occur but the admitting bunchberry happens does not hold.

the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology.

sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the crosshead equates directive.; sent6 & sent7 -> int2: the crosshead does admit kinesiology.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive.

It equates to directive if the crosshead admits grazed.

the crosshead admits grazed.

the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology.

sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the crosshead equates directive.; sent6 & sent7 -> int2: the crosshead does admit kinesiology.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive.

The crosshead admits grazed is correct.

if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect.

the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology.

sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology does not hold.

¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the crosshead does equate directive and does admit kinesiology. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Best admits grazed is correct. sent2: The grazed admits crosshead. sent3: the crosshead admits grazed. sent4: if something does not admit grazed then that it equates directive and it admits kinesiology is not correct. sent5: if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive. sent6: if the crosshead is a nosedive then the fact that it admits kinesiology is not incorrect. sent7: the crosshead nosedives. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the crosshead equates directive.; sent6 & sent7 -> int2: the crosshead does admit kinesiology.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the crosshead admits grazed is right it equates directive.

The crosshead admits grazed it equates to directive.

the crosshead nosedives.

the caryatid is not papery.

sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the caryatid is non-papery.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caryatid is not papery. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the chuck-will's-widow is not a kind of an opus.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the caryatid is not an opus and is papery.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false.

A kind of intellectualization is false if the alpinist does not admit pith.

that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true.

the caryatid is not papery.

sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus.

¬{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the caryatid is non-papery.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the caryatid is not papery. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an opus and/or not papery if it is a shared. sent2: if the alpinist is not papery the caryatid is not papery. sent3: the caryatid is not an opus. sent4: the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false. sent5: the fact that the alpinist does admit pith and is a intellectualization is not correct. sent6: the fact that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is an opus is wrong. sent7: the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus. sent8: the alpinist is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery and admits pith is not true. sent9: the caryatid is not an opus if the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is non-papery thing that is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent10: that the alpinist is not a intellectualization is not incorrect if that that the chuck-will's-widow does not admit pith and is an opus is true is false. sent11: the alpinist is a bunyavirus. sent12: that the chuck-will's-widow is not papery hold. sent13: the fact that the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus is not wrong if the alpinist admits pith. sent14: that the alpinist does not admit pith but it is a kind of a intellectualization is not true. sent15: that the caryatid is not papery but it is a intellectualization is false. sent16: that the chuck-will's-widow is not a intellectualization but it is an opus is wrong. sent17: the caryatid admits pith. sent18: the caryatid is not a intellectualization if the alpinist is not a kind of a intellectualization. sent19: the caryatid is not a kind of an opus but it admits pith if that the alpinist is not a kind of an opus is not incorrect. sent20: if either something is an opus or it is not papery or both it is not papery. sent21: the alpinist is not an opus. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the chuck-will's-widow is not a kind of an opus.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the caryatid is not an opus and is papery.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus if that the alpinist does not admit pith and is a kind of a intellectualization is false.

A kind of intellectualization is false if the alpinist doesn't admit pith.

the caryatid is both not an opus and papery if the chuck-will's-widow is not an opus.

the moray is not restful.

sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the moray does swab county.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moray is not restful. ; $context$ = sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county.

The naphazoline can be found in the county.

the wicket is Mishnaic.

the moray is not restful.

sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the moray does swab county.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moray is not restful. ; $context$ = sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county.

The naphazoline can be found in the swab county.

if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium.

the moray is not restful.

sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold.

¬{D}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the moray does swab county.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the moray is not restful. ; $context$ = sent1: the wicket is not real-time. sent2: if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county. sent3: if the naphazoline is a loading it admits Galium. sent4: if the wicket is both Mishnaic and not restful then the moray is restful. sent5: if the wicket swabs county and it is a loading then the naphazoline is not Mishnaic. sent6: if that the naphazoline does not swab county but it is a loading is not correct then it is Mishnaic. sent7: that the moray is prefectural and is not an imitation is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not real-time. sent8: the wicket is Mishnaic. sent9: if that the naphazoline is not a loading but it is a kind of an imitation does not hold then it does admit Galium. sent10: the moray is not Mishnaic if the fact that the wicket does admit Galium and it is restful is not incorrect. sent11: if the fact that the moray is not non-prefectural but it is not an imitation is false then it is a kind of an imitation. sent12: something does swab county if it admits Galium and it is not Mishnaic. sent13: the moray is an imitation. sent14: the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right. sent15: that the naphazoline is a loading and it is an imitation does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the wicket is Mishnaic the naphazoline does swab county.

The naphazoline does swab county.

the fact that the naphazoline does not load but it is an imitation is not right.

the satellite is not a Stenochlaena.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow.

¬{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the satellite is a kind of a Stenochlaena.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the satellite is not a Stenochlaena. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a piquancy.

It is not a piquancy.

if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow.

the satellite is not a Stenochlaena.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow.

¬{E}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the satellite is a kind of a Stenochlaena.

{E}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the satellite is not a Stenochlaena. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a piquancy. sent2: there exists something such that it does admit satellite. sent3: something is a Stenochlaena that is a piquancy if it does not sallow. sent4: if something either does not swab evil or is a vanilla or both it is not a sallow. sent5: something is not a Stenochlaena if it swabs evil. sent6: that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a piquancy the death is not a sallow. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is not a piquancy.

There is something that makes it not a piquancy.

that the satellite does not swab evil and is not a vanilla does not hold if the death is not a sallow.

the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless.

sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the mailbox is a kind of an expedient and it is fernless is not right.

¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless. ; $context$ = sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl.; sent1 & sent14 -> int2: the mailbox is not a shtikl.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl.

If it is not a shtikl and MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain.

the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless.

sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain.

({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

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

PROVED

PROVED

that the mailbox is a kind of an expedient and it is fernless is not right.

¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless. ; $context$ = sent1: the mailbox is not a shtikl if it is an expressionist and does complain. sent2: if that something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan is right that the coquille does simulate adoxography is not incorrect. sent3: if the defendant does not admit nozzle and does complain then the sampler does not complain. sent4: the fact that the defendant drills hold if the pilaster is not a kind of a drills and it is not a kind of a lotus. sent5: something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl. sent6: if the sampler is not a kind of a shtikl then that the mailbox is an expedient and it is fernless is false. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a shtikl but it is not a kind of an expressionist is wrong if the fact that it does not complain is right. sent8: if the mailbox is not a kind of a shtikl then it is fernless. sent9: something is not a kind of a Shivaism and it is not a roan. sent10: the mailbox is fernless. sent11: something does not admit nozzle but it does complain if that it is a drill is true. sent12: the mailbox does complain. sent13: something is fernless if it is not a kind of a shtikl. sent14: the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the mailbox is expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl.; sent1 & sent14 -> int2: the mailbox is not a shtikl.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is an expedient and it is fernless if it is not a shtikl.

It is fernless if it is not a shtikl and MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE MzE

the mailbox is expressionist and it does complain.

the simulating Lauder does not occur.

sent1: if the zeroness does not occur the simulating Lauder occurs and the simulating grocer happens. sent2: the sou'wester does not occur but the languishing occurs. sent3: both the edging and the swabbing sleepover occurs. sent4: the admitting glare happens. sent5: that the payoff does not occur is triggered by that the unprofitableness but not the disownment happens. sent6: if the swabbing nirvana occurs then the edging does not occur and the swabbing Yanan does not occur. sent7: the edge occurs. sent8: the fact that the swabbing sleepover occurs and the zeroness happens is false if the edge does not occur. sent9: that the admitting atorvastatin does not occur is caused by that the zero occurs. sent10: the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent2: (¬{FQ} & {IA}) sent3: ({E} & {C}) sent4: {JC} sent5: ({GF} & ¬{BA}) -> ¬{DR} sent6: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent7: {E} sent8: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{GD} sent10: (¬{A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

not the admitting atorvastatin but the untrustworthiness occurs.

(¬{GD} & {CR})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the simulating Lauder does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the zeroness does not occur the simulating Lauder occurs and the simulating grocer happens. sent2: the sou'wester does not occur but the languishing occurs. sent3: both the edging and the swabbing sleepover occurs. sent4: the admitting glare happens. sent5: that the payoff does not occur is triggered by that the unprofitableness but not the disownment happens. sent6: if the swabbing nirvana occurs then the edging does not occur and the swabbing Yanan does not occur. sent7: the edge occurs. sent8: the fact that the swabbing sleepover occurs and the zeroness happens is false if the edge does not occur. sent9: that the admitting atorvastatin does not occur is caused by that the zero occurs. sent10: the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens.

the simulating grocer does not occur and the zero happens.

both the edging and the swabbing sleepover occurs.

the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect.

sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {A}{ds} -> ¬{FU}{ds} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{FP}{a}) -> ¬{CR}{a} sent6: {B}{gd} -> {CL}{gd} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic does not hold.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the nudist is not a kind of a Argive.; sent7 & sent1 -> int2: the nudist is a kind of a Argive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false.

If it's not a harridan and it's not avitaminotic, it's not a nudist.

if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive.

the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect.

sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: {A}{ds} -> ¬{FU}{ds} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{FP}{a}) -> ¬{CR}{a} sent6: {B}{gd} -> {CL}{gd} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the nudist is fissile. sent2: if the nudist is avitaminotic then it is not a kind of a Argive. sent3: the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false. sent4: the plaintiff is not a kind of a spout if it is fissile. sent5: the nudist is not obligate if that it is non-fissile thing that does not Rollerblade does not hold. sent6: that the horsepond claps is not false if it is Argive. sent7: if the nudist is fissile then it is a Argive. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the nudist is not a harridan and not avitaminotic does not hold.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the nudist is not a kind of a Argive.; sent7 & sent1 -> int2: the nudist is a kind of a Argive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the nudist is not a Argive if that it is not a kind of a harridan and it is not avitaminotic is false.

If it's not a harridan and it's not avitaminotic, then it's not a nudist.

the nudist is fissile.

there exists something such that it is a sextant and/or it equates Tyne.

sent1: the vulcanization equates Tyne if that the fact that the bauxite is not thrifty and it does not admit prepossession is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: the bauxite does not equate Bouteloua but it is ballistics. sent3: if the vulcanization does not admit prepossession then that it is a metro and does not equate Tyne is not correct. sent4: the bauxite is not a metro. sent5: if something does not equate Bouteloua and is ballistics the fact that it is not a sextant is true.

(Ex): ({C}x v {B}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the sofa is not a kind of a Lucas and does not equate Tyne is not right.

¬(¬{BL}{gn} & ¬{B}{gn})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a sextant and/or it equates Tyne. ; $context$ = sent1: the vulcanization equates Tyne if that the fact that the bauxite is not thrifty and it does not admit prepossession is not incorrect does not hold. sent2: the bauxite does not equate Bouteloua but it is ballistics. sent3: if the vulcanization does not admit prepossession then that it is a metro and does not equate Tyne is not correct. sent4: the bauxite is not a metro. sent5: if something does not equate Bouteloua and is ballistics the fact that it is not a sextant is true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the bauxite is not a metro.

the bauxite is not a metro.

if the vulcanization does not admit prepossession then that it is a metro and does not equate Tyne is not correct.

the collector is perineal.

sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream.

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the collector is not perineal.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collector is perineal. ; $context$ = sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the jument is shallow-draft thing that does not stream.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the flywheel is a grade.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream.

The jument is shallow-draft and not a stream.

the jument is a launcher.

the collector is perineal.

sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream.

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the collector is not perineal.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collector is perineal. ; $context$ = sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the jument is shallow-draft thing that does not stream.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the flywheel is a grade.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream.

The jument is not a stream if it is a launcher.

the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream.

the collector is perineal.

sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream.

{C}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the collector is not perineal.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the collector is perineal. ; $context$ = sent1: the jument is not a kind of a grade. sent2: the fact that something does not grade and it is not a launcher does not hold if the fact that it does not hydrolyze is not incorrect. sent3: the flywheel is a grade if the jument is shallow-draft but it is not a stream. sent4: if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal. sent5: the jument is not a stream if it is a kind of a launcher. sent6: if that that the batter does not grade but it is a launcher is right does not hold it grade. sent7: if the jument is shallow-draft and a stream the flywheel grades. sent8: if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream. sent9: the jument is a launcher. sent10: if the fact that that the collector is not a grade and it is not a launcher is incorrect is not wrong it is not perineal. sent11: the jument is not a kind of a stream. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent9 -> int1: the jument is shallow-draft thing that does not stream.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the flywheel is a grade.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the jument is a launcher then it is shallow-draft and it is not a stream.

The jument is shallow-draft and not a stream if it is a launcher.

if the flywheel is a kind of a grade the collector is perineal.

the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur.

sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right.

(¬{F} & ¬{E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur.

If the adactylousness does not occur, savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay

the adactylousness does not occur.

the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur.

sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right.

(¬{F} & ¬{E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur.

If the adactylousness does not happen, savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay savesay

if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur.

the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur.

sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right.

(¬{F} & ¬{E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur.

The equating death does not occur if the adactylousness does not occur.

the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs.

the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur.

sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right.

(¬{F} & ¬{E})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not true.

¬(¬{F} & ¬{E})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the simulating Tyne does not occur if the fact that the re-formation occurs and the sunset occurs is false. sent2: the adactylousness does not occur. sent3: if the admitting mantissa does not occur the fact that both the re-formation and the sunset happens is incorrect. sent4: the sunset happens and the simulating Tyne occurs. sent5: if the equating death does not occur then the loving does not occur and the stiffening does not occur. sent6: the admitting mantissa does not occur if that that the admitting crochet does not occur and the electromagneticness does not occur is not true is true. sent7: if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur. sent8: if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur. sent9: if the adactylousness happens then that the bioelectricity does not occur and the microsomalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the adactylousness does not occur the equating death does not occur.

The equating death doesn't happen if the adactylousness doesn't occur.

if the simulating Tyne occurs the bioelectricity does not occur.

that something is a kind of a putty but it is not a kind of a signal does not hold.

sent1: the herringbone does not admit elecampane. sent2: if the core does not coin then it swabs old and it does not admit elecampane. sent3: something is a matzo and it is an idol. sent4: The elecampane does not admit herringbone. sent5: there is something such that it does admit elecampane and it is not a signal. sent6: that there is something such that it does admit elecampane is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the Persian is a signal is not false. sent8: if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal. sent9: the fact that the herringbone is not a belemnite is correct.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{EU}{hn} -> ({GL}{hn} & ¬{A}{hn}) sent3: (Ex): ({DO}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{AC}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: {AB}{bm} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{CD}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that something is a kind of a putty but it is not a kind of a signal does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the herringbone does not admit elecampane. sent2: if the core does not coin then it swabs old and it does not admit elecampane. sent3: something is a matzo and it is an idol. sent4: The elecampane does not admit herringbone. sent5: there is something such that it does admit elecampane and it is not a signal. sent6: that there is something such that it does admit elecampane is not incorrect. sent7: the fact that the Persian is a signal is not false. sent8: if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal. sent9: the fact that the herringbone is not a belemnite is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the herringbone is both a putty and not a signal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal.

if that the herringbone does not admit elecampane is correct then it is a putty and it is not a signal.

the herringbone does not admit elecampane.

the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air.

sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: ¬{AC}{es} -> ¬{CH}{es} sent2: {G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent6: ¬{E}{et} sent7: ¬{BR}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: ¬{GE}{a} sent12: ¬{HQ}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: {D}{b} sent17: ¬{IB}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{HG}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the Kleenex is a milligram but it is not proteolytic.

({B}{aj} & ¬{HG}{aj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent14 -> int1: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram.; sent15 -> int2: the retardation is not a granddaughter if it is not a milligram.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter is correct.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy.

The retardation isn't a kind of a gram if it isn't a naturopathy.

the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right.

the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air.

sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: ¬{AC}{es} -> ¬{CH}{es} sent2: {G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent6: ¬{E}{et} sent7: ¬{BR}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: ¬{GE}{a} sent12: ¬{HQ}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: {D}{b} sent17: ¬{IB}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{HG}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the Kleenex is a milligram but it is not proteolytic.

({B}{aj} & ¬{HG}{aj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent14 -> int1: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram.; sent15 -> int2: the retardation is not a granddaughter if it is not a milligram.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter is correct.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy.

The retardation isn't a kind of gram if it isn't a naturopathy.

if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter.

the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air.

sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic.

({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

sent1: ¬{AC}{es} -> ¬{CH}{es} sent2: {G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent6: ¬{E}{et} sent7: ¬{BR}{b} sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: ¬{GE}{a} sent12: ¬{HQ}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: {D}{b} sent17: ¬{IB}{b} sent18: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x & ¬{HG}x)

PROVED

PROVED

the Kleenex is a milligram but it is not proteolytic.

({B}{aj} & ¬{HG}{aj})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alexic is a grubstake but not surface-to-air. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cockroach is not animatistic then it is not a kind of an overlooked. sent2: if the retardation admits RNA it is a kind of surface-to-air thing that does not equate retardation. sent3: if the alexic does not grubstake the retardation is a naturopathy but it is not surface-to-air. sent4: the alexic grubstakes if the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent5: if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air. sent6: the keyhole is not surface-to-air. sent7: the alexic does not shout. sent8: that something grubstakes but it is not surface-to-air is incorrect if it is not a kind of a naturopathy. sent9: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy. sent10: the retardation is not surface-to-air if the alexic is not a naturopathy. sent11: the retardation is not a Taraxacum. sent12: that the retardation does not admit Schopenhauer is not incorrect. sent13: if the fact that something is a kind of a grubstake and/or it is not a granddaughter does not hold then it is a naturopathy. sent14: the fact that the retardation is not a naturopathy is right. sent15: if something is not a milligram it is not a kind of a granddaughter. sent16: the alexic is a grubstake. sent17: the alexic is not a snooker. sent18: something that is a naturopathy is a milligram that is not proteolytic. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent14 -> int1: the retardation is not a kind of a milligram.; sent15 -> int2: the retardation is not a granddaughter if it is not a milligram.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the retardation is not a kind of a granddaughter is correct.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the retardation is not a kind of a milligram if it is not a naturopathy.

If it is not a naturopathy, the retardation is not a kind of gram.

if the retardation is not a granddaughter then the alexic does grubstake and is not surface-to-air.

the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist.

sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the niche is not a kind of a pepperwort and it is not a antipyretic.

(¬{FH}{c} & ¬{AL}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist. ; $context$ = sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the doxorubicin is impersonal is not false.; sent7 & sent5 -> int2: the doxorubicin is not impersonal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal.

The wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist.

the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct.

the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist.

sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the niche is not a kind of a pepperwort and it is not a antipyretic.

(¬{FH}{c} & ¬{AL}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a kind of a Shintoist. ; $context$ = sent1: the wardress is not a kind of a Shintoist. sent2: if the wardress is a Shintoist then the doxorubicin is impersonal. sent3: if the fact that the niche does not swab Thalictrum is correct then the doxorubicin is not impersonal. sent4: that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and is a Shintoist is false. sent5: that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the doxorubicin is impersonal and a Shintoist does not hold. sent7: the doxorubicin is not impersonal if the fact that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and it does equate crochet does not hold is correct. sent8: something that does not swab Thalictrum is both not a pepperwort and not antipyretic. sent9: that the doxorubicin is both personal and not a Minden is not right. sent10: if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the wardress is not a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the doxorubicin is impersonal is not false.; sent7 & sent5 -> int2: the doxorubicin is not impersonal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist does not hold the doxorubicin is not personal.

If the wardress is not a kind of a Minden and it is not a Shintoist, the doxorubicin is not personal.

that the fact that the niche does swab Thalictrum and does equate crochet is false is not wrong.

the formulariness happens.

sent1: the non-formularyness is prevented by the meteoricness. sent2: the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur.

{D}

sent1: {C} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the formulariness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the non-formularyness is prevented by the meteoricness. sent2: the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur.

the fork prevents that the meteoricness does not occur.

the non-formularyness is prevented by the meteoricness.

the admitting absolution does not occur.

sent1: the fact that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold if the asynchronousness does not occur. sent2: that not the diverging but the cross-culturalness happens yields that the detachment does not occur. sent3: the fact that the asynchronousness does not occur and the admitting absolution does not occur does not hold if the equating crabbiness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the scrape happens is not wrong then the clickety-clack happens. sent5: that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right. sent6: the admitting absolution happens and the scraping occurs if the detachment does not occur. sent7: the extravagance occurs. sent8: if that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold the pity does not occur. sent9: the hypnotism occurs. sent10: if the equating crabbiness and the clickety-clack occurs then the admitting absolution does not occur. sent11: the asynchronousness occurs. sent12: the bloviating occurs if the histocompatibility occurs. sent13: the scrape does not occur and the detachment does not occur if the cross-culturalness does not occur. sent14: that the non-cross-culturalness and the diverging occurs is triggered by that the anemography occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({DL} & ¬{B}) sent2: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent3: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{D}) sent4: {E} -> {C} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent7: {IT} sent8: ¬({DL} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DL} sent9: {FO} sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {A} sent12: {BA} -> {EO} sent13: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent14: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pity does not occur.

¬{DL}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the admitting absolution does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold if the asynchronousness does not occur. sent2: that not the diverging but the cross-culturalness happens yields that the detachment does not occur. sent3: the fact that the asynchronousness does not occur and the admitting absolution does not occur does not hold if the equating crabbiness does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the scrape happens is not wrong then the clickety-clack happens. sent5: that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right. sent6: the admitting absolution happens and the scraping occurs if the detachment does not occur. sent7: the extravagance occurs. sent8: if that the pity but not the equating crabbiness occurs does not hold the pity does not occur. sent9: the hypnotism occurs. sent10: if the equating crabbiness and the clickety-clack occurs then the admitting absolution does not occur. sent11: the asynchronousness occurs. sent12: the bloviating occurs if the histocompatibility occurs. sent13: the scrape does not occur and the detachment does not occur if the cross-culturalness does not occur. sent14: that the non-cross-culturalness and the diverging occurs is triggered by that the anemography occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right.

that the equating crabbiness occurs hold if the fact that the asynchronousness happens is right.

the asynchronousness occurs.

the pitprop is not periodic.

sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pitprop is not periodic.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pitprop is not periodic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a kind of a Lauder hold.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae.

If it is a Carchariidae, the beta-adrenoceptor does not mimic tael.

the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae.

the pitprop is not periodic.

sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the pitprop is not periodic.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the pitprop is not periodic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Alsatian is not periodic if the stent is not seductive and not periodic. sent2: the Alsatian unifies. sent3: the beta-adrenoceptor is a kind of a Carchariidae. sent4: if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic. sent5: the stent is not a Friedman. sent6: if that the beta-adrenoceptor does not unify and is periodic is wrong the pitprop is not periodic. sent7: the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a kind of a Lauder hold.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder if it is a Carchariidae.

If it is a Carchariidae, the beta-adrenoceptor does not mimic tael and is a Lauder.

if the beta-adrenoceptor does not simulate tael and is a Lauder then the pitprop is periodic.

that the drive-in does admit rape hold.

sent1: if the spline does admit rape then the drive-in is not a kind of a time. sent2: the drive-in does not admit rape if the spline simulates Cordylus. sent3: if the spline is a time or it does simulate Cordylus or both then the drive-in does not admit rape. sent4: the drive-in does not simulate Cordylus if the spline does admit rape. sent5: the spline is a time. sent6: if something admits rape but it is not a time then it does simulate Cordylus.

{C}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the canoe does simulate Cordylus.

{B}{bk}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the drive-in does admit rape hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spline does admit rape then the drive-in is not a kind of a time. sent2: the drive-in does not admit rape if the spline simulates Cordylus. sent3: if the spline is a time or it does simulate Cordylus or both then the drive-in does not admit rape. sent4: the drive-in does not simulate Cordylus if the spline does admit rape. sent5: the spline is a time. sent6: if something admits rape but it is not a time then it does simulate Cordylus. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: the spline times and/or it simulates Cordylus.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the spline is a time.

the spline is a time.

if the spline is a time or it does simulate Cordylus or both then the drive-in does not admit rape.

the equating gloominess does not occur and the refusal occurs.

sent1: if that the situation does not occur is true then that both the multiformness and the unlightedness happens is not true. sent2: the striping does not occur if the fact that the striping does not occur or the oral does not occur or both is not wrong. sent3: the refusal happens if that the admitting adit does not occur but the commute occurs hold. sent4: if the fact that the multiformness but not the lighted happens does not hold the multiformness does not occur. sent5: that the reflectiveness but not the sinking occurs causes that the equating gloominess does not occur. sent6: that the striping does not occur causes that the admitting adit does not occur and the commute does not occur. sent7: the reflectiveness occurs but the sinking does not occur. sent8: the fact that not the equating gloominess but the refusal happens is not right if that the commuting does not occur is not incorrect. sent9: if that the multiformness does not occur is not false the striping does not occur or the oralness does not occur or both.

(¬{B} & {A})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN