Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the fact that the saman is not a Wake but it is a wrongdoer does not hold.

sent1: the saman is not a kind of a Wake but it is a wrongdoer if the elephant's-foot is a wrongdoer. sent2: the nucleoside does devote Edirne. sent3: if something is a chiropodist but it is not a kind of a revision then it is semicentennial. sent4: that the opiate culls contrast and/or is empiric hold. sent5: the saman is a kind of a Wake if the opiate is a Wake. sent6: the saman does devote Edirne if the nucleoside does devote Edirne. sent7: the fact that the elephant's-foot is muciferous and does not cull Crick is wrong if that it is semicentennial is not wrong. sent8: something is a chiropodist but it is not a kind of a revision if it devotes Edirne. sent9: something is a wrongdoer if the fact that it is a Wake is right. sent10: the elephant's-foot is not non-semicentennial. sent11: the fact that if the fact that something is muciferous but it does not cull Crick is not correct it is a kind of a wrongdoer is not false.

¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the direction does cull Crick.

{AB}{fu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the saman is not a Wake but it is a wrongdoer does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the saman is not a kind of a Wake but it is a wrongdoer if the elephant's-foot is a wrongdoer. sent2: the nucleoside does devote Edirne. sent3: if something is a chiropodist but it is not a kind of a revision then it is semicentennial. sent4: that the opiate culls contrast and/or is empiric hold. sent5: the saman is a kind of a Wake if the opiate is a Wake. sent6: the saman does devote Edirne if the nucleoside does devote Edirne. sent7: the fact that the elephant's-foot is muciferous and does not cull Crick is wrong if that it is semicentennial is not wrong. sent8: something is a chiropodist but it is not a kind of a revision if it devotes Edirne. sent9: something is a wrongdoer if the fact that it is a Wake is right. sent10: the elephant's-foot is not non-semicentennial. sent11: the fact that if the fact that something is muciferous but it does not cull Crick is not correct it is a kind of a wrongdoer is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: if the fact that the elephant's-foot is muciferous thing that does not cull Crick does not hold then it is a kind of a wrongdoer.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the elephant's-foot is muciferous but it does not cull Crick is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the elephant's-foot is a wrongdoer.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that if the fact that something is muciferous but it does not cull Crick is not correct it is a kind of a wrongdoer is not false.

It is a kind of wrongdoer if something is muciferous but not correct.

the saman is not a kind of a Wake but it is a wrongdoer if the elephant's-foot is a wrongdoer.

the mobcap is not a kind of a perceptibility but it does cull name.

sent1: something is egoistic and it is ametabolic if the fact that it is not pneumococcal hold. sent2: if that the mobcap is not pneumococcal and culls Dragunov does not hold then the Sikh is not pneumococcal. sent3: the Sikh is both egoistic and a perceptibility if the introduction is not ametabolic. sent4: something is a kind of non-ametabolic thing that is pneumococcal if it does not cull Dragunov. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a foryml that is a naming does not hold the fact that the pig is a Phalaropidae is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is a foryml and a naming is not true. sent7: that something is a kind of non-pneumococcal thing that culls Dragunov is incorrect if it is a prorogation. sent8: the Sikh is ametabolic. sent9: if something is egoistic the fact that it is not a kind of a perceptibility and is diatomic does not hold. sent10: the mobcap is a prorogation if that the introduction does not transfer taxidermist and it is not a Phalaropidae is not correct.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the Sikh is not a perceptibility but it is diatomic is not correct.

¬(¬{AA}{b} & {IS}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mobcap is not a kind of a perceptibility but it does cull name. ; $context$ = sent1: something is egoistic and it is ametabolic if the fact that it is not pneumococcal hold. sent2: if that the mobcap is not pneumococcal and culls Dragunov does not hold then the Sikh is not pneumococcal. sent3: the Sikh is both egoistic and a perceptibility if the introduction is not ametabolic. sent4: something is a kind of non-ametabolic thing that is pneumococcal if it does not cull Dragunov. sent5: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a foryml that is a naming does not hold the fact that the pig is a Phalaropidae is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is a foryml and a naming is not true. sent7: that something is a kind of non-pneumococcal thing that culls Dragunov is incorrect if it is a prorogation. sent8: the Sikh is ametabolic. sent9: if something is egoistic the fact that it is not a kind of a perceptibility and is diatomic does not hold. sent10: the mobcap is a prorogation if that the introduction does not transfer taxidermist and it is not a Phalaropidae is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Sikh is ametabolic.

the Sikh is ametabolic.

if that the mobcap is not pneumococcal and culls Dragunov does not hold then the Sikh is not pneumococcal.

the wilt does not occur.

sent1: if the Ruritanian does not occur then the culling taurine does not occur and the adynamicness happens. sent2: if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs. sent3: if that the champerty does not occur is correct then that the fissionableness does not occur and the proceeding does not occur is not right. sent4: if the grudging spermatophyte does not occur the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur. sent5: if the congregation does not occur the will-o'-the-wisp happens and the Carolingianness happens. sent6: that both the wilting and the conformity occurs does not hold if the devoting partialness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Ruritanian does not occur is not wrong if the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent8: if the fact that the culling taurine does not occur hold then the consecrating happens and the fetish occurs. sent9: the conformity happens and the champerty happens. sent10: if the will-o'-the-wisp occurs the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent11: if the devoting partialness does not occur then not the champerty but the conformity occurs. sent12: if that the fetish happens is true the grudging spermatophyte does not occur. sent13: the fissionableness occurs. sent14: the difficultness does not occur if the fact that the proceeding and/or the non-fissionableness occurs does not hold. sent15: that the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur triggers that the devoting partialness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the congregation does not occur is true if the fact that the camouflaging does not occur but the congregation happens is not true.

¬{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the wilting occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wilt does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Ruritanian does not occur then the culling taurine does not occur and the adynamicness happens. sent2: if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs. sent3: if that the champerty does not occur is correct then that the fissionableness does not occur and the proceeding does not occur is not right. sent4: if the grudging spermatophyte does not occur the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur. sent5: if the congregation does not occur the will-o'-the-wisp happens and the Carolingianness happens. sent6: that both the wilting and the conformity occurs does not hold if the devoting partialness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Ruritanian does not occur is not wrong if the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent8: if the fact that the culling taurine does not occur hold then the consecrating happens and the fetish occurs. sent9: the conformity happens and the champerty happens. sent10: if the will-o'-the-wisp occurs the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent11: if the devoting partialness does not occur then not the champerty but the conformity occurs. sent12: if that the fetish happens is true the grudging spermatophyte does not occur. sent13: the fissionableness occurs. sent14: the difficultness does not occur if the fact that the proceeding and/or the non-fissionableness occurs does not hold. sent15: that the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur triggers that the devoting partialness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the congregation does not occur is true if the fact that the camouflaging does not occur but the congregation happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs.

The proceeding occurs if the fissionableness happens.

the fissionableness occurs.

the wilt does not occur.

sent1: if the Ruritanian does not occur then the culling taurine does not occur and the adynamicness happens. sent2: if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs. sent3: if that the champerty does not occur is correct then that the fissionableness does not occur and the proceeding does not occur is not right. sent4: if the grudging spermatophyte does not occur the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur. sent5: if the congregation does not occur the will-o'-the-wisp happens and the Carolingianness happens. sent6: that both the wilting and the conformity occurs does not hold if the devoting partialness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Ruritanian does not occur is not wrong if the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent8: if the fact that the culling taurine does not occur hold then the consecrating happens and the fetish occurs. sent9: the conformity happens and the champerty happens. sent10: if the will-o'-the-wisp occurs the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent11: if the devoting partialness does not occur then not the champerty but the conformity occurs. sent12: if that the fetish happens is true the grudging spermatophyte does not occur. sent13: the fissionableness occurs. sent14: the difficultness does not occur if the fact that the proceeding and/or the non-fissionableness occurs does not hold. sent15: that the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur triggers that the devoting partialness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the congregation does not occur is true if the fact that the camouflaging does not occur but the congregation happens is not true.

¬{D}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the wilting occurs.

{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wilt does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Ruritanian does not occur then the culling taurine does not occur and the adynamicness happens. sent2: if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs. sent3: if that the champerty does not occur is correct then that the fissionableness does not occur and the proceeding does not occur is not right. sent4: if the grudging spermatophyte does not occur the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur. sent5: if the congregation does not occur the will-o'-the-wisp happens and the Carolingianness happens. sent6: that both the wilting and the conformity occurs does not hold if the devoting partialness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Ruritanian does not occur is not wrong if the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent8: if the fact that the culling taurine does not occur hold then the consecrating happens and the fetish occurs. sent9: the conformity happens and the champerty happens. sent10: if the will-o'-the-wisp occurs the Ruritanian does not occur or the culling octahedron does not occur or both. sent11: if the devoting partialness does not occur then not the champerty but the conformity occurs. sent12: if that the fetish happens is true the grudging spermatophyte does not occur. sent13: the fissionableness occurs. sent14: the difficultness does not occur if the fact that the proceeding and/or the non-fissionableness occurs does not hold. sent15: that the neuromuscularness does not occur and the blocking does not occur triggers that the devoting partialness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the congregation does not occur is true if the fact that the camouflaging does not occur but the congregation happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fissionableness happens then the proceeding occurs.

The proceeding will occur if the fissionableness happens.

the conformity happens and the champerty happens.

the marshal is a specialization.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the marshal is a specialization.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the marshal is a specialization. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the matron does not cull Etna.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the coiner is grapelike and culls Etna is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct.

The fact that it is indoors is not correct.

if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna.

the marshal is a specialization.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the marshal is a specialization.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the marshal is a specialization. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the matron does not cull Etna.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the coiner is grapelike and culls Etna is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct.

The fact that it is indoor is not correct.

the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna.

the marshal is a specialization.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true.

{C}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the marshal is a specialization.

{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the marshal is a specialization. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct. sent2: if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization. sent3: that the matron is not grapelike and it is not a specialization is not true if the coiner culls Etna. sent4: if there is something such that it does not tessellate the fact that the coiner transfers prestige and it does tessellate is not correct. sent5: that the linac does not tessellate hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it is indoor and does not elongate is not incorrect is incorrect the matron does not cull Etna. sent7: the fact that the coiner is not non-grapelike and culls Etna is false if the matron does not culls Etna. sent8: something is a kind of a imide if it is not a sunlamp. sent9: a imide culls Etna. sent10: something is not a sunlamp if that it does transfer prestige and it does tessellate is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the matron does not cull Etna.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the coiner is grapelike and culls Etna is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that the fact that it is indoor and it does not elongate is not correct.

The fact that it is indoors and does not grow is not correct.

if that the coiner is a kind of grapelike thing that does cull Etna is incorrect the marshal is not a specialization.

the delicacy is not lyric and not ancestral.

sent1: the shawm is not Hertzian and it is not a Priapus. sent2: something is not a respiration and not a lyric if it is Hertzian. sent3: the delicacy does not romance fearlessness and is not ancestral if there is something such that it is a Artocarpus. sent4: the detector is a vagrant and it is a kind of a repose. sent5: if the spiegeleisen does not repose it is a vagrant that is a kind of an inaccessibility. sent6: something is Hertzian. sent7: the delicacy is non-lyric thing that is not ancestral if there is something such that the fact that it is Hertzian is right. sent8: the delicacy does not welter and it is not ancestral if the ageratum is pyrectic. sent9: the delicacy does not diffract ageratum. sent10: something is pyrectic if that it is not a vagrant and is not a kind of an inaccessibility is not correct. sent11: the spiegeleisen is not pyrectic if that it is a kind of an inaccessibility is right. sent12: if the spiegeleisen is not pyrectic that the detector is Hertzian and/or it does not welter is not right. sent13: the delicacy does not lyric if there is something such that it is Hertzian. sent14: the quibbler is Hertzian if there exists something such that it does not welter and is non-ancestral. sent15: the delicacy is not Hertzian and it does not share Pujunan.

(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

sent1: (¬{A}{bf} & ¬{IC}{bf}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> (¬{IU}x & ¬{B}x) sent3: (x): {BH}x -> (¬{BU}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent5: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{d} & {F}{d}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: {E}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent9: ¬{CN}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {E}x sent11: {F}{d} -> ¬{E}{d} sent12: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬({A}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}{dm} sent15: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{HF}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

the quibbler is not a respiration and is not a lyric.

(¬{IU}{dm} & ¬{B}{dm})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the delicacy is not lyric and not ancestral. ; $context$ = sent1: the shawm is not Hertzian and it is not a Priapus. sent2: something is not a respiration and not a lyric if it is Hertzian. sent3: the delicacy does not romance fearlessness and is not ancestral if there is something such that it is a Artocarpus. sent4: the detector is a vagrant and it is a kind of a repose. sent5: if the spiegeleisen does not repose it is a vagrant that is a kind of an inaccessibility. sent6: something is Hertzian. sent7: the delicacy is non-lyric thing that is not ancestral if there is something such that the fact that it is Hertzian is right. sent8: the delicacy does not welter and it is not ancestral if the ageratum is pyrectic. sent9: the delicacy does not diffract ageratum. sent10: something is pyrectic if that it is not a vagrant and is not a kind of an inaccessibility is not correct. sent11: the spiegeleisen is not pyrectic if that it is a kind of an inaccessibility is right. sent12: if the spiegeleisen is not pyrectic that the detector is Hertzian and/or it does not welter is not right. sent13: the delicacy does not lyric if there is something such that it is Hertzian. sent14: the quibbler is Hertzian if there exists something such that it does not welter and is non-ancestral. sent15: the delicacy is not Hertzian and it does not share Pujunan. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is Hertzian.

something is Hertzian.

the delicacy is non-lyric thing that is not ancestral if there is something such that the fact that it is Hertzian is right.

that that the sighing does not occur prevents that the sequestering does not occur is not true.

sent1: both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness happens if the sigh does not occur. sent2: that both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness occurs prevents that the sequestering does not occur. sent3: the breakdown does not occur. sent4: that both the Ambrosianness and the unpaintableness happens triggers that the diffracting Gary happens. sent5: that the leglessness happens is caused by that the satisfaction but not the peepshow happens.

¬(¬{A} -> {B})

sent1: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{DO} sent4: ({IF} & ¬{GR}) -> {GQ} sent5: ({FS} & ¬{IB}) -> {GA}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the sighing does not occur prevents that the sequestering does not occur is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness happens if the sigh does not occur. sent2: that both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness occurs prevents that the sequestering does not occur. sent3: the breakdown does not occur. sent4: that both the Ambrosianness and the unpaintableness happens triggers that the diffracting Gary happens. sent5: that the leglessness happens is caused by that the satisfaction but not the peepshow happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sigh does not occur.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: the sequestering occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness happens if the sigh does not occur.

both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness happens if the sigh does not occur.

that both the non-basiscopicness and the non-classicisticness occurs prevents that the sequestering does not occur.

the alert does not occur.

sent1: the downspin happens and/or the sharing Tay does not occur. sent2: that the immiscibleness occurs is triggered by that either the ametropicness occurs or the sharing Trinitarianism does not occur or both. sent3: if the downspin occurs or the sharing Tay does not occur or both then the diffracting dong occurs.

¬{C}

sent1: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent2: ({ES} v ¬{FF}) -> {HD} sent3: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the alert does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the downspin happens and/or the sharing Tay does not occur. sent2: that the immiscibleness occurs is triggered by that either the ametropicness occurs or the sharing Trinitarianism does not occur or both. sent3: if the downspin occurs or the sharing Tay does not occur or both then the diffracting dong occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the downspin occurs or the sharing Tay does not occur or both then the diffracting dong occurs.

if the downspin occurs or the sharing Tay does not occur or both then the diffracting dong occurs.

the downspin happens and/or the sharing Tay does not occur.

the rickey does share siloxane and/or it is a safe-conduct.

sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a cricket and it does not share hepatomegaly. sent2: the fact that something shares siloxane and/or it is a safe-conduct does not hold if it does not share hypobasidium. sent3: that the rickey does not share hypobasidium but it is a kind of a safe-conduct is not correct if it is a kludge. sent4: something is not a kind of a fatness if it does not bite. sent5: if that that the superstrate is not a Mandaean and it is not a simian is not incorrect does not hold the rickey is not a simian. sent6: the rickey does share siloxane or is unbridgeable or both. sent7: the hummer is circulatory if it is a hustler. sent8: the lovastatin is a safe-conduct. sent9: the rickey does share hypobasidium. sent10: the rickey does share siloxane if it shares hypobasidium. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a simian hold it is a kind of a leading that is a kind of a kludge. sent12: if something that does lead is a kludge then it does not share hypobasidium. sent13: The hypobasidium does share rickey. sent14: if the cedarbird is carcinomatous that the superstrate is not a Mandaean and it is not a kind of a simian is wrong. sent15: something is a kind of carcinomatous thing that is not a skateboarding if it is not a fatness. sent16: if something does not lead that it is not a kludge and it does share hypobasidium is not true. sent17: if the soup-strainer is unethical it is autocatalytic. sent18: the rickey is a kind of a safe-conduct or it is a soup-strainer or both. sent19: a safe-conduct diffracts kittee.

({B}{a} v {C}{a})

sent1: (Ex): (¬{L}x & ¬{M}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x v {C}x) sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬{J}x sent5: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent6: ({B}{a} v {IS}{a}) sent7: {AS}{de} -> {EC}{de} sent8: {C}{cm} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) sent12: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x sent13: {AA}{aa} sent14: {H}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent15: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({H}x & ¬{I}x) sent16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {A}x) sent17: {BD}{aq} -> {HM}{aq} sent18: ({C}{a} v {HJ}{a}) sent19: (x): {C}x -> {HD}x

PROVED

PROVED

the waltzer shares siloxane.

{B}{fd}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the rickey does share siloxane and/or it is a safe-conduct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a kind of a cricket and it does not share hepatomegaly. sent2: the fact that something shares siloxane and/or it is a safe-conduct does not hold if it does not share hypobasidium. sent3: that the rickey does not share hypobasidium but it is a kind of a safe-conduct is not correct if it is a kludge. sent4: something is not a kind of a fatness if it does not bite. sent5: if that that the superstrate is not a Mandaean and it is not a simian is not incorrect does not hold the rickey is not a simian. sent6: the rickey does share siloxane or is unbridgeable or both. sent7: the hummer is circulatory if it is a hustler. sent8: the lovastatin is a safe-conduct. sent9: the rickey does share hypobasidium. sent10: the rickey does share siloxane if it shares hypobasidium. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a simian hold it is a kind of a leading that is a kind of a kludge. sent12: if something that does lead is a kludge then it does not share hypobasidium. sent13: The hypobasidium does share rickey. sent14: if the cedarbird is carcinomatous that the superstrate is not a Mandaean and it is not a kind of a simian is wrong. sent15: something is a kind of carcinomatous thing that is not a skateboarding if it is not a fatness. sent16: if something does not lead that it is not a kludge and it does share hypobasidium is not true. sent17: if the soup-strainer is unethical it is autocatalytic. sent18: the rickey is a kind of a safe-conduct or it is a soup-strainer or both. sent19: a safe-conduct diffracts kittee. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the rickey shares siloxane.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rickey does share siloxane if it shares hypobasidium.

the rickey does share siloxane if it shares hypobasidium.

the rickey does share hypobasidium.

the introversion is a overanxiety.

sent1: the coulisse is a kind of a seating. sent2: the coulisse is a stressor. sent3: if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect. sent4: the cachet is a overanxiety. sent5: the introversion is not a overanxiety if the rack is biquadratic or it is not non-Carthaginian or both. sent6: that if the rack is biquadratic then the introversion is not a overanxiety is true. sent7: if the coulisse is a overanxiety then that the introversion is a overanxiety is not incorrect. sent8: the rack is a overanxiety and/or it is a kind of a Carthaginian. sent9: the rack is a stressor and/or is Carthaginian.

{D}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the introversion is a kind of a overanxiety.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the introversion is a overanxiety. ; $context$ = sent1: the coulisse is a kind of a seating. sent2: the coulisse is a stressor. sent3: if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect. sent4: the cachet is a overanxiety. sent5: the introversion is not a overanxiety if the rack is biquadratic or it is not non-Carthaginian or both. sent6: that if the rack is biquadratic then the introversion is not a overanxiety is true. sent7: if the coulisse is a overanxiety then that the introversion is a overanxiety is not incorrect. sent8: the rack is a overanxiety and/or it is a kind of a Carthaginian. sent9: the rack is a stressor and/or is Carthaginian. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the rack is a Carthaginian.; int1 -> int2: the rack is biquadratic and/or is a kind of a Carthaginian.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect.

The rack is Carthaginian if the fact that the coulisse is a stressor is correct.

the coulisse is a stressor.

the introversion is a overanxiety.

sent1: the coulisse is a kind of a seating. sent2: the coulisse is a stressor. sent3: if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect. sent4: the cachet is a overanxiety. sent5: the introversion is not a overanxiety if the rack is biquadratic or it is not non-Carthaginian or both. sent6: that if the rack is biquadratic then the introversion is not a overanxiety is true. sent7: if the coulisse is a overanxiety then that the introversion is a overanxiety is not incorrect. sent8: the rack is a overanxiety and/or it is a kind of a Carthaginian. sent9: the rack is a stressor and/or is Carthaginian.

{D}{c}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the introversion is a kind of a overanxiety.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the introversion is a overanxiety. ; $context$ = sent1: the coulisse is a kind of a seating. sent2: the coulisse is a stressor. sent3: if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect. sent4: the cachet is a overanxiety. sent5: the introversion is not a overanxiety if the rack is biquadratic or it is not non-Carthaginian or both. sent6: that if the rack is biquadratic then the introversion is not a overanxiety is true. sent7: if the coulisse is a overanxiety then that the introversion is a overanxiety is not incorrect. sent8: the rack is a overanxiety and/or it is a kind of a Carthaginian. sent9: the rack is a stressor and/or is Carthaginian. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the rack is a Carthaginian.; int1 -> int2: the rack is biquadratic and/or is a kind of a Carthaginian.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of a stressor is correct that the rack is Carthaginian is not incorrect.

The rack is Carthaginian if the fact that the coulisse is a kind of stressor is correct.

the introversion is not a overanxiety if the rack is biquadratic or it is not non-Carthaginian or both.

there exists something such that the fact that it shares argument and does not diffract upright is not true.

sent1: there exists something such that it is not outer. sent2: there exists something such that it administers haunted. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it shares argument and diffracts upright is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that it shares argument and it does not diffract upright. sent5: if the extinguisher does not diffract upright then the cheerer does share argument. sent6: the fact that the pro-lifer shares argument and does not diffract upright is not right if there exists something such that it does not administer haunted.

(Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x)

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

there is something such that it does not collogue.

(Ex): ¬{Q}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it shares argument and does not diffract upright is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not outer. sent2: there exists something such that it administers haunted. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it shares argument and diffracts upright is not correct. sent4: there exists something such that it shares argument and it does not diffract upright. sent5: if the extinguisher does not diffract upright then the cheerer does share argument. sent6: the fact that the pro-lifer shares argument and does not diffract upright is not right if there exists something such that it does not administer haunted. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not outer.

there exists something such that it is not outer.

there exists something such that it administers haunted.

the towline is not bony.

sent1: the palliative is a kind of non-ulcerative thing that is a synapse. sent2: the dent is aculeate if there is something such that that it does share INC and it is antiquarian does not hold. sent3: something is not rhetorical and it is not ulcerative. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a spadefoot the fact that the cardoon is not a pizzicato is not incorrect. sent5: something is ulcerative if it is a posthouse. sent6: if something is rhetorical but it does not share Tyto it is a kind of a posthouse. sent7: something that is chemiluminescent is unperceptive. sent8: there exists something such that it is a spadefoot. sent9: the outrider is not a kind of a namer if the dent does not diffract insolence but it is a namer. sent10: the paretic does not diffract mannequin if the cardoon does not diffract mannequin and is sartorial. sent11: the towline is a posthouse if there exists something such that it is unrhetorical thing that is not ulcerative. sent12: the towline diffracts Momus if it does share bantering. sent13: the fact that something that is not a namer is a kind of rhetorical thing that does not share Tyto is not false. sent14: if something is not a pizzicato then it does not diffract mannequin and is sartorial. sent15: if something is not rhetorical then it is not ulcerative. sent16: if the paretic does not diffract mannequin then the fact that the defamer shares INC and is not non-antiquarian is wrong. sent17: the towline is not rhetorical if the dent is not a namer and does not share Tyto. sent18: the fact that something does not diffract insolence and is a namer is not false if it is aculeate.

¬{AA}{aa}

sent1: (¬{B}{fh} & {II}{fh}) sent2: (x): ¬({I}x & {H}x) -> {F}{a} sent3: (Ex): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: (x): {M}x -> ¬{L}{d} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent6: (x): ({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}x sent7: (x): {GM}x -> {DD}x sent8: (Ex): {M}x sent9: (¬{G}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{E}{fe} sent10: (¬{J}{d} & {K}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent11: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}{aa} sent12: {U}{aa} -> {GN}{aa} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): ¬{L}x -> (¬{J}x & {K}x) sent15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬({I}{b} & {H}{b}) sent17: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent18: (x): {F}x -> (¬{G}x & {E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the towline is bony.

{AA}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the towline is not bony. ; $context$ = sent1: the palliative is a kind of non-ulcerative thing that is a synapse. sent2: the dent is aculeate if there is something such that that it does share INC and it is antiquarian does not hold. sent3: something is not rhetorical and it is not ulcerative. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a spadefoot the fact that the cardoon is not a pizzicato is not incorrect. sent5: something is ulcerative if it is a posthouse. sent6: if something is rhetorical but it does not share Tyto it is a kind of a posthouse. sent7: something that is chemiluminescent is unperceptive. sent8: there exists something such that it is a spadefoot. sent9: the outrider is not a kind of a namer if the dent does not diffract insolence but it is a namer. sent10: the paretic does not diffract mannequin if the cardoon does not diffract mannequin and is sartorial. sent11: the towline is a posthouse if there exists something such that it is unrhetorical thing that is not ulcerative. sent12: the towline diffracts Momus if it does share bantering. sent13: the fact that something that is not a namer is a kind of rhetorical thing that does not share Tyto is not false. sent14: if something is not a pizzicato then it does not diffract mannequin and is sartorial. sent15: if something is not rhetorical then it is not ulcerative. sent16: if the paretic does not diffract mannequin then the fact that the defamer shares INC and is not non-antiquarian is wrong. sent17: the towline is not rhetorical if the dent is not a namer and does not share Tyto. sent18: the fact that something does not diffract insolence and is a namer is not false if it is aculeate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is not rhetorical and it is not ulcerative.

something is not rhetorical and it is not ulcerative.

the towline is a posthouse if there exists something such that it is unrhetorical thing that is not ulcerative.

that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect.

sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Dipper is not a Fiedler.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent8 -> int1: the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the panther is Bolivian.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Circassian.

There is a Circassian that exists.

if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum.

that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect.

sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Dipper is not a Fiedler.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent8 -> int1: the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the panther is Bolivian.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Circassian.

There is something called a Circassian.

if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian.

that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect.

sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator.

{E}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the Dipper is not a Fiedler.

¬{E}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the spice is not a patternmaker is right. sent3: the fact that the curb does share percentile but it does not romance plankton is wrong if it is a facial. sent4: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum if something is a kind of a Circassian. sent5: if the ethnic is a patternmaker that is not a kind of a Colchicum then the panther is Bolivian. sent6: the panther is not a Bolivian if there is something such that it is a Colchicum. sent7: the Dipper is a Fiedler if the ethnic is a Colchicum and it is a Bolivian. sent8: if something is a kind of a Circassian the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum. sent9: something is inertial if the fact that it romances Euclid is not false. sent10: there exists something such that it is a Fiedler. sent11: the ethnic is not a kind of a Colchicum. sent12: if the abrader is not a kind of a Tongan then the fact that the glipizide does diffract simulator or does not speculate or both is not true. sent13: if the ethnic is a patternmaker and is a kind of a Colchicum the panther is a Bolivian. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Circassian. sent15: that something is a kind of a Colchicum or is not a kind of a Bolivian or both is incorrect if it is inertial. sent16: if that the curb does share percentile and does not romance plankton does not hold then the ethnic is not a Circassian. sent17: the ethnic is a kind of a Kirchhoff that romances Euclid if the panther does not diffract simulator. sent18: something is not a kind of a Fiedler if that the fact that it is a Fiedler and it is not a Circassian is right does not hold. sent19: the curb is facial. sent20: something is not a patternmaker if the fact that it is a Colchicum and/or not a Bolivian does not hold. sent21: if that the glipizide diffracts simulator or does not speculate or both is not true then the panther does not diffracts simulator. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent8 -> int1: the ethnic is a patternmaker but it is not a Colchicum.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: the panther is Bolivian.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a Circassian.

There is something that is a Circassian.

if the panther is a Bolivian that the Dipper is a Fiedler is not incorrect.

the Bulgarian does not share Cyclopteridae.

sent1: something that does not share Cyclopteridae is a martyrdom and is a kind of a blackbody. sent2: the analyzer is a martyrdom. sent3: if something is a kind of a nester and it is a martyrdom the analyzer does not share Cyclopteridae. sent4: the Bulgarian is not a kind of a honeysuckle. sent5: the analyzer does frequent and is chemiluminescent. sent6: the Bulgarian does not share Cyclopteridae if there exists something such that it is a nester and a martyrdom. sent7: something is high-interest and it is a kind of a Disraeli. sent8: everything is a kind of a martyrdom. sent9: there is something such that it is a martyrdom. sent10: that the Bulgarian shares Cyclopteridae is correct if the greenskeeper shares Cyclopteridae. sent11: everything is bacteriological and does diffract Edison. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a martyrdom and it is a kind of a nester then the analyzer does not share Cyclopteridae. sent13: the Bulgarian is not a tither. sent14: something is a saccharin if it is not a nester.

¬{C}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {BE}x) sent2: {B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent4: ¬{GA}{a} sent5: ({GQ}{aa} & {BJ}{aa}) sent6: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({EM}x & {CH}x) sent8: (x): {B}x sent9: (Ex): {B}x sent10: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ({CN}x & {EQ}x) sent12: (x): ({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent13: ¬{DO}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {DG}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the Bulgarian shares Cyclopteridae.

{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Bulgarian does not share Cyclopteridae. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not share Cyclopteridae is a martyrdom and is a kind of a blackbody. sent2: the analyzer is a martyrdom. sent3: if something is a kind of a nester and it is a martyrdom the analyzer does not share Cyclopteridae. sent4: the Bulgarian is not a kind of a honeysuckle. sent5: the analyzer does frequent and is chemiluminescent. sent6: the Bulgarian does not share Cyclopteridae if there exists something such that it is a nester and a martyrdom. sent7: something is high-interest and it is a kind of a Disraeli. sent8: everything is a kind of a martyrdom. sent9: there is something such that it is a martyrdom. sent10: that the Bulgarian shares Cyclopteridae is correct if the greenskeeper shares Cyclopteridae. sent11: everything is bacteriological and does diffract Edison. sent12: if there exists something such that it is a martyrdom and it is a kind of a nester then the analyzer does not share Cyclopteridae. sent13: the Bulgarian is not a tither. sent14: something is a saccharin if it is not a nester. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a martyrdom.

there is something such that it is a martyrdom.

if something is a kind of a nester and it is a martyrdom the analyzer does not share Cyclopteridae.

the chimneystack does diffract provincial.

sent1: there is nothing such that it does not succeed and it is palmar. sent2: the fact that the spiegeleisen does not share autoeroticism is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is false. sent3: that something does share autoeroticism and is chaffy is wrong if it does not diffract provincial. sent4: there is something such that that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is wrong.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cotoneaster does not clear-cut.

¬{AB}{fu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chimneystack does diffract provincial. ; $context$ = sent1: there is nothing such that it does not succeed and it is palmar. sent2: the fact that the spiegeleisen does not share autoeroticism is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is false. sent3: that something does share autoeroticism and is chaffy is wrong if it does not diffract provincial. sent4: there is something such that that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is wrong.

there is something such that that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is wrong.

the fact that the spiegeleisen does not share autoeroticism is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not on-line and it does not clear-cut is false.

something is a kind of a judge that does oscillate.

sent1: the canister judges. sent2: the sugar oscillates. sent3: the canister is a Constitution if it is a Pitt. sent4: there exists something such that that it does coo is right. sent5: there exists something such that it is alular and it sublimates. sent6: the canister is not a judge and it is not non-metric if it is a Constitution.

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

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {B}{db} sent3: {E}{a} -> {D}{a} sent4: (Ex): {AO}x sent5: (Ex): ({FN}x & {EI}x) sent6: {D}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the radiocarbon oscillates is correct.

{B}{hu}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is a kind of a judge that does oscillate. ; $context$ = sent1: the canister judges. sent2: the sugar oscillates. sent3: the canister is a Constitution if it is a Pitt. sent4: there exists something such that that it does coo is right. sent5: there exists something such that it is alular and it sublimates. sent6: the canister is not a judge and it is not non-metric if it is a Constitution. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is alular and it sublimates.

there exists something such that it is alular and it sublimates.

there exists something such that that it does coo is right.

there exists something such that the fact that it is not a nutlet is right.

sent1: the fact that the layer is both not malignant and a nankeen does not hold. sent2: something is not a nutlet if it is intralinguistic. sent3: if the fact that something does not administer mumble but it is a player is not right it is not a xeroradiography. sent4: the layer is not a kind of a nutlet if it is intralinguistic. sent5: something is not a nutlet if the fact that it is non-intralinguistic thing that is conspicuous is not correct. sent6: something is not a predator. sent7: there is nothing such that it is intralinguistic and it is conspicuous. sent8: if the broadloom is not exocentric then the fact that the layer is not a absorbate but it is conspicuous does not hold. sent9: if that something is unemployable thing that is a kind of a disharmony is not correct the fact that it does not diffract simulator is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that is both not intralinguistic and conspicuous. sent11: that the layer is intralinguistic and it is not inconspicuous is incorrect. sent12: something is not a Monk.

(Ex): ¬{B}x

sent1: ¬(¬{CJ}{aa} & {AK}{aa}) sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{FL}x & {JD}x) -> ¬{ID}x sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{IR}x sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{JG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): ¬(¬{FR}x & {EG}x) -> ¬{DQ}x sent10: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): ¬{GG}x

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the layer is both not a absorbate and conspicuous is wrong.

¬(¬{JG}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it is not a nutlet is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the layer is both not malignant and a nankeen does not hold. sent2: something is not a nutlet if it is intralinguistic. sent3: if the fact that something does not administer mumble but it is a player is not right it is not a xeroradiography. sent4: the layer is not a kind of a nutlet if it is intralinguistic. sent5: something is not a nutlet if the fact that it is non-intralinguistic thing that is conspicuous is not correct. sent6: something is not a predator. sent7: there is nothing such that it is intralinguistic and it is conspicuous. sent8: if the broadloom is not exocentric then the fact that the layer is not a absorbate but it is conspicuous does not hold. sent9: if that something is unemployable thing that is a kind of a disharmony is not correct the fact that it does not diffract simulator is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that is both not intralinguistic and conspicuous. sent11: that the layer is intralinguistic and it is not inconspicuous is incorrect. sent12: something is not a Monk. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> int1: if the fact that that the layer is not intralinguistic and is conspicuous does not hold is true it is not a nutlet.; sent10 -> int2: the fact that the layer is both non-intralinguistic and conspicuous is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the layer is not a nutlet.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is not a nutlet if the fact that it is non-intralinguistic thing that is conspicuous is not correct.

something is not a nutlet if the fact that it is non-intralinguistic thing that is conspicuous is not correct.

there exists nothing that is both not intralinguistic and conspicuous.

the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine.

sent1: the bookseller is not a glutamine if it does overflow and it does lithograph. sent2: the whelk lithographs if an agreeable thing does not administer skua. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Mallon and it is not a lithograph. sent4: if something is back-channel it is not a Mallon. sent5: if that the whelk is not a Mallon hold the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. sent6: the fact that the whelk is not a kind of an overflow and it is not a kind of a lithograph is not true if the worthy is not a Mallon. sent7: the bookseller lithographs if there exists something such that it is a glutamine and it is not an overflow. sent8: the whelk is autocatalytic. sent9: something is agreeable and does not administer skua. sent10: if the worthy is not a kind of a visibility then it stipulates and is back-channel. sent11: something does not administer skua. sent12: the whelk does overflow. sent13: there is something such that it is not a glutamine. sent14: the whelk is a lithograph if something is agreeable and it administers skua. sent15: that the bookseller is a kind of an overflow is not false.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bookseller is a glutamine.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. ; $context$ = sent1: the bookseller is not a glutamine if it does overflow and it does lithograph. sent2: the whelk lithographs if an agreeable thing does not administer skua. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Mallon and it is not a lithograph. sent4: if something is back-channel it is not a Mallon. sent5: if that the whelk is not a Mallon hold the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. sent6: the fact that the whelk is not a kind of an overflow and it is not a kind of a lithograph is not true if the worthy is not a Mallon. sent7: the bookseller lithographs if there exists something such that it is a glutamine and it is not an overflow. sent8: the whelk is autocatalytic. sent9: something is agreeable and does not administer skua. sent10: if the worthy is not a kind of a visibility then it stipulates and is back-channel. sent11: something does not administer skua. sent12: the whelk does overflow. sent13: there is something such that it is not a glutamine. sent14: the whelk is a lithograph if something is agreeable and it administers skua. sent15: that the bookseller is a kind of an overflow is not false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is agreeable and does not administer skua.

Something that1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556

the whelk lithographs if an agreeable thing does not administer skua.

the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine.

sent1: the bookseller is not a glutamine if it does overflow and it does lithograph. sent2: the whelk lithographs if an agreeable thing does not administer skua. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Mallon and it is not a lithograph. sent4: if something is back-channel it is not a Mallon. sent5: if that the whelk is not a Mallon hold the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. sent6: the fact that the whelk is not a kind of an overflow and it is not a kind of a lithograph is not true if the worthy is not a Mallon. sent7: the bookseller lithographs if there exists something such that it is a glutamine and it is not an overflow. sent8: the whelk is autocatalytic. sent9: something is agreeable and does not administer skua. sent10: if the worthy is not a kind of a visibility then it stipulates and is back-channel. sent11: something does not administer skua. sent12: the whelk does overflow. sent13: there is something such that it is not a glutamine. sent14: the whelk is a lithograph if something is agreeable and it administers skua. sent15: that the bookseller is a kind of an overflow is not false.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bookseller is a glutamine.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. ; $context$ = sent1: the bookseller is not a glutamine if it does overflow and it does lithograph. sent2: the whelk lithographs if an agreeable thing does not administer skua. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a Mallon and it is not a lithograph. sent4: if something is back-channel it is not a Mallon. sent5: if that the whelk is not a Mallon hold the bookseller is not a kind of a glutamine. sent6: the fact that the whelk is not a kind of an overflow and it is not a kind of a lithograph is not true if the worthy is not a Mallon. sent7: the bookseller lithographs if there exists something such that it is a glutamine and it is not an overflow. sent8: the whelk is autocatalytic. sent9: something is agreeable and does not administer skua. sent10: if the worthy is not a kind of a visibility then it stipulates and is back-channel. sent11: something does not administer skua. sent12: the whelk does overflow. sent13: there is something such that it is not a glutamine. sent14: the whelk is a lithograph if something is agreeable and it administers skua. sent15: that the bookseller is a kind of an overflow is not false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

something is agreeable and does not administer skua.

Something that1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556

the whelk does overflow.

the diffracting deckled does not occur.

sent1: the cesareanness occurs. sent2: if the unwinding happens and the contralateralness occurs the diffracting deckled does not occur. sent3: if the infallibleness happens the Hawaiian but not the earful occurs. sent4: the flattering does not occur. sent5: if the contralateralness does not occur the unwinding and the diffracting deckled occurs. sent6: the unwinding occurs. sent7: the fact that the pyelography does not occur is true. sent8: the contralateralness happens. sent9: the contralateralness does not occur if the Hawaiian happens and the earful does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {HH} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬{S} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent6: {A} sent7: ¬{I} sent8: {B} sent9: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B}

PROVED

PROVED

the diffracting deckled occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the diffracting deckled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the cesareanness occurs. sent2: if the unwinding happens and the contralateralness occurs the diffracting deckled does not occur. sent3: if the infallibleness happens the Hawaiian but not the earful occurs. sent4: the flattering does not occur. sent5: if the contralateralness does not occur the unwinding and the diffracting deckled occurs. sent6: the unwinding occurs. sent7: the fact that the pyelography does not occur is true. sent8: the contralateralness happens. sent9: the contralateralness does not occur if the Hawaiian happens and the earful does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: both the unwinding and the contralateralness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unwinding occurs.

The event occurs.

the contralateralness happens.

the diffracting deckled does not occur.

sent1: the cesareanness occurs. sent2: if the unwinding happens and the contralateralness occurs the diffracting deckled does not occur. sent3: if the infallibleness happens the Hawaiian but not the earful occurs. sent4: the flattering does not occur. sent5: if the contralateralness does not occur the unwinding and the diffracting deckled occurs. sent6: the unwinding occurs. sent7: the fact that the pyelography does not occur is true. sent8: the contralateralness happens. sent9: the contralateralness does not occur if the Hawaiian happens and the earful does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {HH} sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent4: ¬{S} sent5: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {C}) sent6: {A} sent7: ¬{I} sent8: {B} sent9: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B}

PROVED

PROVED

the diffracting deckled occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the diffracting deckled does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the cesareanness occurs. sent2: if the unwinding happens and the contralateralness occurs the diffracting deckled does not occur. sent3: if the infallibleness happens the Hawaiian but not the earful occurs. sent4: the flattering does not occur. sent5: if the contralateralness does not occur the unwinding and the diffracting deckled occurs. sent6: the unwinding occurs. sent7: the fact that the pyelography does not occur is true. sent8: the contralateralness happens. sent9: the contralateralness does not occur if the Hawaiian happens and the earful does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: both the unwinding and the contralateralness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the unwinding occurs.

The unwind occurs.

if the unwinding happens and the contralateralness occurs the diffracting deckled does not occur.

there is something such that it is not rh-negative.

sent1: the crusher cutinizes and is spondaic. sent2: if something is not spondaic the originator is non-biogenic thing that does not cutinize. sent3: the tonic is non-spondaic. sent4: the crusher is a A-bomb. sent5: the loganberry is neoplastic if there exists something such that the fact that it is ultramontane and cutinizes is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold. sent7: if the crusher is ophthalmic then the originator is ophthalmic. sent8: if a non-biogenic thing does not cutinize then it does saturate. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is canalicular and it is a A-bomb is not true then the crusher is biogenic.

(Ex): ¬{C}x

sent1: ({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}{cf} & ¬{B}{cf}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({CJ}x & {B}x) -> {BL}{aj} sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {GH}{a} -> {GH}{cf} sent8: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {JC}x sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the originator saturates and is ophthalmic.

({JC}{cf} & {GH}{cf})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not rh-negative. ; $context$ = sent1: the crusher cutinizes and is spondaic. sent2: if something is not spondaic the originator is non-biogenic thing that does not cutinize. sent3: the tonic is non-spondaic. sent4: the crusher is a A-bomb. sent5: the loganberry is neoplastic if there exists something such that the fact that it is ultramontane and cutinizes is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold. sent7: if the crusher is ophthalmic then the originator is ophthalmic. sent8: if a non-biogenic thing does not cutinize then it does saturate. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is canalicular and it is a A-bomb is not true then the crusher is biogenic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold.

There is a canalicular thing that does not hold a A-bomb.

if there is something such that the fact that it is canalicular and it is a A-bomb is not true then the crusher is biogenic.

there is something such that it is not rh-negative.

sent1: the crusher cutinizes and is spondaic. sent2: if something is not spondaic the originator is non-biogenic thing that does not cutinize. sent3: the tonic is non-spondaic. sent4: the crusher is a A-bomb. sent5: the loganberry is neoplastic if there exists something such that the fact that it is ultramontane and cutinizes is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold. sent7: if the crusher is ophthalmic then the originator is ophthalmic. sent8: if a non-biogenic thing does not cutinize then it does saturate. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is canalicular and it is a A-bomb is not true then the crusher is biogenic.

(Ex): ¬{C}x

sent1: ({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}{cf} & ¬{B}{cf}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({CJ}x & {B}x) -> {BL}{aj} sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {GH}{a} -> {GH}{cf} sent8: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {JC}x sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the originator saturates and is ophthalmic.

({JC}{cf} & {GH}{cf})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not rh-negative. ; $context$ = sent1: the crusher cutinizes and is spondaic. sent2: if something is not spondaic the originator is non-biogenic thing that does not cutinize. sent3: the tonic is non-spondaic. sent4: the crusher is a A-bomb. sent5: the loganberry is neoplastic if there exists something such that the fact that it is ultramontane and cutinizes is wrong. sent6: there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold. sent7: if the crusher is ophthalmic then the originator is ophthalmic. sent8: if a non-biogenic thing does not cutinize then it does saturate. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is canalicular and it is a A-bomb is not true then the crusher is biogenic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that that it is canalicular and it is a kind of a A-bomb does not hold.

There is a canalicular thing that doesn't hold a A-bomb.

the crusher cutinizes and is spondaic.

the great-niece does not regenerate.

sent1: if the fact that the great-niece is not a server or not non-horticultural or both does not hold then the journalist does regenerate. sent2: the fact that the journalist is non-horticultural thing that is a kind of an auditorium is not correct if it does not romance disestablishment. sent3: the journalist is not horticultural. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not molal and it is not a soundman is not right. sent5: the fact that the great-niece is not a strophanthus or it is a Cocytus or both does not hold. sent6: the journalist does not romance disestablishment if there is something such that that it is not molal and it is not a kind of a soundman is wrong. sent7: that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural. sent8: the great-niece is not a Butterfield. sent9: the journalist is horticultural if that the fact that the great-niece is unregenerate or it is proprioceptive or both is not right hold. sent10: if the journalist is not horticultural that it is a server is right. sent11: the great-niece is regenerate if that the journalist is a server and/or it is proprioceptive is wrong. sent12: if that the fact that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both is correct does not hold the great-niece does regenerate. sent13: something that is horticultural thing that does diffract great-niece is not regenerate. sent14: the fact that the journalist is a server hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the great-niece does not regenerate.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the great-niece does not regenerate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the great-niece is not a server or not non-horticultural or both does not hold then the journalist does regenerate. sent2: the fact that the journalist is non-horticultural thing that is a kind of an auditorium is not correct if it does not romance disestablishment. sent3: the journalist is not horticultural. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not molal and it is not a soundman is not right. sent5: the fact that the great-niece is not a strophanthus or it is a Cocytus or both does not hold. sent6: the journalist does not romance disestablishment if there is something such that that it is not molal and it is not a kind of a soundman is wrong. sent7: that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural. sent8: the great-niece is not a Butterfield. sent9: the journalist is horticultural if that the fact that the great-niece is unregenerate or it is proprioceptive or both is not right hold. sent10: if the journalist is not horticultural that it is a server is right. sent11: the great-niece is regenerate if that the journalist is a server and/or it is proprioceptive is wrong. sent12: if that the fact that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both is correct does not hold the great-niece does regenerate. sent13: something that is horticultural thing that does diffract great-niece is not regenerate. sent14: the fact that the journalist is a server hold. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the journalist is not a server and/or it is proprioceptive is incorrect.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural.

The journalist is not a server or proprioceptive if it is not horticultural.

the journalist is not horticultural.

the great-niece does not regenerate.

sent1: if the fact that the great-niece is not a server or not non-horticultural or both does not hold then the journalist does regenerate. sent2: the fact that the journalist is non-horticultural thing that is a kind of an auditorium is not correct if it does not romance disestablishment. sent3: the journalist is not horticultural. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not molal and it is not a soundman is not right. sent5: the fact that the great-niece is not a strophanthus or it is a Cocytus or both does not hold. sent6: the journalist does not romance disestablishment if there is something such that that it is not molal and it is not a kind of a soundman is wrong. sent7: that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural. sent8: the great-niece is not a Butterfield. sent9: the journalist is horticultural if that the fact that the great-niece is unregenerate or it is proprioceptive or both is not right hold. sent10: if the journalist is not horticultural that it is a server is right. sent11: the great-niece is regenerate if that the journalist is a server and/or it is proprioceptive is wrong. sent12: if that the fact that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both is correct does not hold the great-niece does regenerate. sent13: something that is horticultural thing that does diffract great-niece is not regenerate. sent14: the fact that the journalist is a server hold.

¬{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the great-niece does not regenerate.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the great-niece does not regenerate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the great-niece is not a server or not non-horticultural or both does not hold then the journalist does regenerate. sent2: the fact that the journalist is non-horticultural thing that is a kind of an auditorium is not correct if it does not romance disestablishment. sent3: the journalist is not horticultural. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not molal and it is not a soundman is not right. sent5: the fact that the great-niece is not a strophanthus or it is a Cocytus or both does not hold. sent6: the journalist does not romance disestablishment if there is something such that that it is not molal and it is not a kind of a soundman is wrong. sent7: that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural. sent8: the great-niece is not a Butterfield. sent9: the journalist is horticultural if that the fact that the great-niece is unregenerate or it is proprioceptive or both is not right hold. sent10: if the journalist is not horticultural that it is a server is right. sent11: the great-niece is regenerate if that the journalist is a server and/or it is proprioceptive is wrong. sent12: if that the fact that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both is correct does not hold the great-niece does regenerate. sent13: something that is horticultural thing that does diffract great-niece is not regenerate. sent14: the fact that the journalist is a server hold. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: that the journalist is not a server and/or it is proprioceptive is incorrect.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both does not hold if it is not horticultural.

If the journalist is not a server or proprioceptive, it doesn't hold.

if that the fact that the journalist is not a server or is proprioceptive or both is correct does not hold the great-niece does regenerate.

the sloganeer is a kind of a bill.

sent1: that that something does not diffract shuffler and it is not a ejaculator is not incorrect does not hold if it is not ectopic. sent2: that that the mainframe is not a swizzle and it is not astrological is incorrect is correct. sent3: that the sloganeer does not share roundedness hold. sent4: the sloganeer does not romance neurohormone. sent5: The neurohormone does not romance sloganeer. sent6: if the fact that the nonparticipant is a kind of a aldohexose but it does not bill is false then the sloganeer does not bill. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a aldohexose but it does not bill does not hold if it does not share stockpile. sent8: That the roundedness does not share sloganeer hold.

{B}{aa}

sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: ¬(¬{G}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: ¬{AC}{ab} sent6: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent8: ¬{AD}{ac}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the sloganeer is not a kind of a bill.

¬{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sloganeer is a kind of a bill. ; $context$ = sent1: that that something does not diffract shuffler and it is not a ejaculator is not incorrect does not hold if it is not ectopic. sent2: that that the mainframe is not a swizzle and it is not astrological is incorrect is correct. sent3: that the sloganeer does not share roundedness hold. sent4: the sloganeer does not romance neurohormone. sent5: The neurohormone does not romance sloganeer. sent6: if the fact that the nonparticipant is a kind of a aldohexose but it does not bill is false then the sloganeer does not bill. sent7: the fact that something is a kind of a aldohexose but it does not bill does not hold if it does not share stockpile. sent8: That the roundedness does not share sloganeer hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the sloganeer does not romance neurohormone.

the sloganeer does not romance neurohormone.

that the sloganeer does not share roundedness hold.

the rag is inhumane.

sent1: something does not diffract Tashmit if that it diffracts dirtiness and it is not hypothalamic is not true. sent2: the castrato is not inhumane if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Floridian. sent3: if something that does not diffract Tashmit does not romance clipped then it is not a meme. sent4: the rag is not a kind of a Floridian if there is something such that that it does share sickbay and it is a Floridian is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does diffract EGTK and romances clipped is not true the Manila does not romances clipped. sent6: there exists something such that it does shoot. sent7: that the Manila diffracts dirtiness but it is not hypothalamic does not hold if it does not share unpalatability. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not tetrametric or it does not romance drill or both. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a shot that the drill diffracts EGTK and romances clipped is wrong. sent10: that the convection shares sickbay and it is a kind of a Floridian does not hold if that the Manila is not a kind of a meme hold. sent11: the fact that something does not romance drill and/or does not contend is not right if it is not inhumane. sent12: if that the brother is not tetrametric and/or it does not romance drill does not hold then the rag is inhumane. sent13: the Manila does not share unpalatability.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the fact that the castrato does not romance drill and/or it does not contend hold is not true.

¬(¬{AB}{gm} v ¬{IJ}{gm})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rag is inhumane. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not diffract Tashmit if that it diffracts dirtiness and it is not hypothalamic is not true. sent2: the castrato is not inhumane if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Floridian. sent3: if something that does not diffract Tashmit does not romance clipped then it is not a meme. sent4: the rag is not a kind of a Floridian if there is something such that that it does share sickbay and it is a Floridian is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that the fact that it does diffract EGTK and romances clipped is not true the Manila does not romances clipped. sent6: there exists something such that it does shoot. sent7: that the Manila diffracts dirtiness but it is not hypothalamic does not hold if it does not share unpalatability. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is not tetrametric or it does not romance drill or both. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a shot that the drill diffracts EGTK and romances clipped is wrong. sent10: that the convection shares sickbay and it is a kind of a Floridian does not hold if that the Manila is not a kind of a meme hold. sent11: the fact that something does not romance drill and/or does not contend is not right if it is not inhumane. sent12: if that the brother is not tetrametric and/or it does not romance drill does not hold then the rag is inhumane. sent13: the Manila does not share unpalatability. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fact that the brother either is not tetrametric or does not romance drill or both is wrong.; sent12 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists nothing such that it is not tetrametric or it does not romance drill or both.

there exists nothing such that it is not tetrametric or it does not romance drill or both.

if that the brother is not tetrametric and/or it does not romance drill does not hold then the rag is inhumane.

the catechu diffracts textured and is a rhymer.

sent1: if something is nonarbitrary the fact that it does not diffract textured and does not diffract assizes is false. sent2: the catechu is a rhymer. sent3: that the catechu does diffract textured hold. sent4: the pump is unwholesome if there are noncurrent things. sent5: if the catechu does not diffract assizes but it does diffract textured the nectar diffract textured. sent6: that the breechcloth romances aggressiveness and is not nonarbitrary does not hold if that it is not asteroidal is not incorrect. sent7: That the textured does diffract catechu hold. sent8: the chino is a kind of a BASIC that is macerative. sent9: the catechu diffracts reinforcement. sent10: there is something such that it is asteroidal. sent11: if something is asteroidal the fact that it does romance aggressiveness or it is not nonarbitrary or both is not right. sent12: if something romances aggressiveness then it is nonarbitrary. sent13: everything is asteroidal. sent14: the fact that something is noncurrent hold if it diffracts reinforcement. sent15: the fact that the pump is not one-piece and it is not asteroidal is false if there exists something such that it is asteroidal.

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

sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: {B}{a} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: (x): {H}x -> {JH}{k} sent5: (¬{C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {A}{t} sent6: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent7: {AA}{aa} sent8: ({BS}{dl} & {S}{dl}) sent9: {I}{a} sent10: (Ex): {F}x sent11: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x v ¬{D}x) sent12: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent13: (x): {F}x sent14: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent15: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{G}{k} & ¬{F}{k})

PROVED

PROVED

that the catechu diffracts textured and is a rhymer is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the catechu diffracts textured and is a rhymer. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is nonarbitrary the fact that it does not diffract textured and does not diffract assizes is false. sent2: the catechu is a rhymer. sent3: that the catechu does diffract textured hold. sent4: the pump is unwholesome if there are noncurrent things. sent5: if the catechu does not diffract assizes but it does diffract textured the nectar diffract textured. sent6: that the breechcloth romances aggressiveness and is not nonarbitrary does not hold if that it is not asteroidal is not incorrect. sent7: That the textured does diffract catechu hold. sent8: the chino is a kind of a BASIC that is macerative. sent9: the catechu diffracts reinforcement. sent10: there is something such that it is asteroidal. sent11: if something is asteroidal the fact that it does romance aggressiveness or it is not nonarbitrary or both is not right. sent12: if something romances aggressiveness then it is nonarbitrary. sent13: everything is asteroidal. sent14: the fact that something is noncurrent hold if it diffracts reinforcement. sent15: the fact that the pump is not one-piece and it is not asteroidal is false if there exists something such that it is asteroidal. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the catechu does diffract textured hold.

that the catechu does diffract textured hold.

the catechu is a rhymer.

the unenthusiasticness does not occur.

sent1: the romancing Binet does not occur. sent2: the bronchoscopicness happens. sent3: the inhibition occurs. sent4: the restraint happens. sent5: the undependableness happens. sent6: the cubicness is prevented by that both the horripilating and the damascening happens. sent7: that both the localization and the functionalness occurs prevents that the unenthusiasticness occurs. sent8: the localization happens. sent9: the sharing cleats does not occur. sent10: the sharing hemophiliac and the Italianness happens. sent11: the attacking and the warp occurs. sent12: the fact that the functionalness happens is not false.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{AS} sent2: {EJ} sent3: {DC} sent4: {BG} sent5: {J} sent6: ({FP} & {AF}) -> ¬{ID} sent7: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{GD} sent10: ({EA} & {GP}) sent11: ({DM} & {HJ}) sent12: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the unenthusiasticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the romancing Binet does not occur. sent2: the bronchoscopicness happens. sent3: the inhibition occurs. sent4: the restraint happens. sent5: the undependableness happens. sent6: the cubicness is prevented by that both the horripilating and the damascening happens. sent7: that both the localization and the functionalness occurs prevents that the unenthusiasticness occurs. sent8: the localization happens. sent9: the sharing cleats does not occur. sent10: the sharing hemophiliac and the Italianness happens. sent11: the attacking and the warp occurs. sent12: the fact that the functionalness happens is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the localization happens and the functionalness occurs hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the localization happens.

The translation happens.

the fact that the functionalness happens is not false.

the unenthusiasticness does not occur.

sent1: the romancing Binet does not occur. sent2: the bronchoscopicness happens. sent3: the inhibition occurs. sent4: the restraint happens. sent5: the undependableness happens. sent6: the cubicness is prevented by that both the horripilating and the damascening happens. sent7: that both the localization and the functionalness occurs prevents that the unenthusiasticness occurs. sent8: the localization happens. sent9: the sharing cleats does not occur. sent10: the sharing hemophiliac and the Italianness happens. sent11: the attacking and the warp occurs. sent12: the fact that the functionalness happens is not false.

¬{C}

sent1: ¬{AS} sent2: {EJ} sent3: {DC} sent4: {BG} sent5: {J} sent6: ({FP} & {AF}) -> ¬{ID} sent7: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent8: {A} sent9: ¬{GD} sent10: ({EA} & {GP}) sent11: ({DM} & {HJ}) sent12: {B}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the unenthusiasticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the romancing Binet does not occur. sent2: the bronchoscopicness happens. sent3: the inhibition occurs. sent4: the restraint happens. sent5: the undependableness happens. sent6: the cubicness is prevented by that both the horripilating and the damascening happens. sent7: that both the localization and the functionalness occurs prevents that the unenthusiasticness occurs. sent8: the localization happens. sent9: the sharing cleats does not occur. sent10: the sharing hemophiliac and the Italianness happens. sent11: the attacking and the warp occurs. sent12: the fact that the functionalness happens is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the localization happens and the functionalness occurs hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the localization happens.

It happens.

that both the localization and the functionalness occurs prevents that the unenthusiasticness occurs.

both the Eddy and the spaceflight occurs.

sent1: if the sharing signal occurs the gang-raping occurs. sent2: if the laugh does not occur and the diffracting respondent occurs then the hypotonicity does not occur. sent3: that the laugh and the spaceflight happens is not correct. sent4: the sharing signal happens if the dermalness happens. sent5: the hypotonicity happens. sent6: the tarriance does not occur and the Frostianness does not occur if the gang-raping occurs. sent7: the fact that both the Eddy and the spaceflight happens is not correct if the hypotonicity does not occur. sent8: if that the neolithicness happens but the epidemic does not occur is not correct then the epidemic happens. sent9: the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs. sent10: that the laughing but not the spaceflight happens does not hold. sent11: the diffracting overlordship happens if that the sharing basinet occurs but the diffracting overlordship does not occur is not true. sent12: the structuralness occurs and the entrenching happens. sent13: not the laugh but the diffracting respondent occurs if the phonemicness does not occur. sent14: the spaceflight happens if that the laugh happens but the spaceflight does not occur is false. sent15: the fatalistness happens and the Chicago occurs. sent16: the failure occurs. sent17: that the tarriance does not occur yields that the non-phonemicness and the humaneness happens.

({B} & {C})

sent1: {K} -> {J} sent2: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬({D} & {C}) sent4: {L} -> {K} sent5: {A} sent6: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent8: ¬({GG} & ¬{GJ}) -> {GJ} sent9: ({A} & {B}) sent10: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent11: ¬({BN} & ¬{AA}) -> {AA} sent12: ({IH} & {IQ}) sent13: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent14: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) -> {C} sent15: ({CB} & {BC}) sent16: {FF} sent17: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & {G})

PROVED

PROVED

that the Eddy and the spaceflight happens does not hold.

¬({B} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the Eddy and the spaceflight occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sharing signal occurs the gang-raping occurs. sent2: if the laugh does not occur and the diffracting respondent occurs then the hypotonicity does not occur. sent3: that the laugh and the spaceflight happens is not correct. sent4: the sharing signal happens if the dermalness happens. sent5: the hypotonicity happens. sent6: the tarriance does not occur and the Frostianness does not occur if the gang-raping occurs. sent7: the fact that both the Eddy and the spaceflight happens is not correct if the hypotonicity does not occur. sent8: if that the neolithicness happens but the epidemic does not occur is not correct then the epidemic happens. sent9: the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs. sent10: that the laughing but not the spaceflight happens does not hold. sent11: the diffracting overlordship happens if that the sharing basinet occurs but the diffracting overlordship does not occur is not true. sent12: the structuralness occurs and the entrenching happens. sent13: not the laugh but the diffracting respondent occurs if the phonemicness does not occur. sent14: the spaceflight happens if that the laugh happens but the spaceflight does not occur is false. sent15: the fatalistness happens and the Chicago occurs. sent16: the failure occurs. sent17: that the tarriance does not occur yields that the non-phonemicness and the humaneness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the Eddy happens.; sent14 & sent10 -> int2: the spaceflight happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs.

The two occur at 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-

the spaceflight happens if that the laugh happens but the spaceflight does not occur is false.

both the Eddy and the spaceflight occurs.

sent1: if the sharing signal occurs the gang-raping occurs. sent2: if the laugh does not occur and the diffracting respondent occurs then the hypotonicity does not occur. sent3: that the laugh and the spaceflight happens is not correct. sent4: the sharing signal happens if the dermalness happens. sent5: the hypotonicity happens. sent6: the tarriance does not occur and the Frostianness does not occur if the gang-raping occurs. sent7: the fact that both the Eddy and the spaceflight happens is not correct if the hypotonicity does not occur. sent8: if that the neolithicness happens but the epidemic does not occur is not correct then the epidemic happens. sent9: the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs. sent10: that the laughing but not the spaceflight happens does not hold. sent11: the diffracting overlordship happens if that the sharing basinet occurs but the diffracting overlordship does not occur is not true. sent12: the structuralness occurs and the entrenching happens. sent13: not the laugh but the diffracting respondent occurs if the phonemicness does not occur. sent14: the spaceflight happens if that the laugh happens but the spaceflight does not occur is false. sent15: the fatalistness happens and the Chicago occurs. sent16: the failure occurs. sent17: that the tarriance does not occur yields that the non-phonemicness and the humaneness happens.

({B} & {C})

sent1: {K} -> {J} sent2: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{A} sent3: ¬({D} & {C}) sent4: {L} -> {K} sent5: {A} sent6: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent8: ¬({GG} & ¬{GJ}) -> {GJ} sent9: ({A} & {B}) sent10: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent11: ¬({BN} & ¬{AA}) -> {AA} sent12: ({IH} & {IQ}) sent13: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent14: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) -> {C} sent15: ({CB} & {BC}) sent16: {FF} sent17: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & {G})

PROVED

PROVED

that the Eddy and the spaceflight happens does not hold.

¬({B} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the Eddy and the spaceflight occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sharing signal occurs the gang-raping occurs. sent2: if the laugh does not occur and the diffracting respondent occurs then the hypotonicity does not occur. sent3: that the laugh and the spaceflight happens is not correct. sent4: the sharing signal happens if the dermalness happens. sent5: the hypotonicity happens. sent6: the tarriance does not occur and the Frostianness does not occur if the gang-raping occurs. sent7: the fact that both the Eddy and the spaceflight happens is not correct if the hypotonicity does not occur. sent8: if that the neolithicness happens but the epidemic does not occur is not correct then the epidemic happens. sent9: the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs. sent10: that the laughing but not the spaceflight happens does not hold. sent11: the diffracting overlordship happens if that the sharing basinet occurs but the diffracting overlordship does not occur is not true. sent12: the structuralness occurs and the entrenching happens. sent13: not the laugh but the diffracting respondent occurs if the phonemicness does not occur. sent14: the spaceflight happens if that the laugh happens but the spaceflight does not occur is false. sent15: the fatalistness happens and the Chicago occurs. sent16: the failure occurs. sent17: that the tarriance does not occur yields that the non-phonemicness and the humaneness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the Eddy happens.; sent14 & sent10 -> int2: the spaceflight happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hypotonicity occurs and the Eddy occurs.

The hypotonicity is what happens and the Eddy is what picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures picures

that the laughing but not the spaceflight happens does not hold.

the wieldiness occurs.

sent1: the fact that the aerobicsness does not occur if that the wieldiness does not occur and/or the brutality does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the jam occurs if the romancing pigskin happens. sent3: the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens. sent4: the sharing mosquitofish occurs and the aerobicsness occurs if the brutality does not occur. sent5: the wieldiness occurs if the aerobicsness happens. sent6: the sharing mosquitofish occurs.

{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wieldiness does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wieldiness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the aerobicsness does not occur if that the wieldiness does not occur and/or the brutality does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the jam occurs if the romancing pigskin happens. sent3: the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens. sent4: the sharing mosquitofish occurs and the aerobicsness occurs if the brutality does not occur. sent5: the wieldiness occurs if the aerobicsness happens. sent6: the sharing mosquitofish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the aerobicsness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens.

If the sharing mosquitofish happens, the aerobicsness occurs.

the sharing mosquitofish occurs.

the wieldiness occurs.

sent1: the fact that the aerobicsness does not occur if that the wieldiness does not occur and/or the brutality does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the jam occurs if the romancing pigskin happens. sent3: the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens. sent4: the sharing mosquitofish occurs and the aerobicsness occurs if the brutality does not occur. sent5: the wieldiness occurs if the aerobicsness happens. sent6: the sharing mosquitofish occurs.

{C}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the wieldiness does not occur.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the wieldiness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the aerobicsness does not occur if that the wieldiness does not occur and/or the brutality does not occur is incorrect hold. sent2: the jam occurs if the romancing pigskin happens. sent3: the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens. sent4: the sharing mosquitofish occurs and the aerobicsness occurs if the brutality does not occur. sent5: the wieldiness occurs if the aerobicsness happens. sent6: the sharing mosquitofish occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent6 -> int1: the aerobicsness happens.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the aerobicsness occurs if the sharing mosquitofish happens.

If the sharing mosquitofish happens, the aerobicsness will occur.

the wieldiness occurs if the aerobicsness happens.

that the dagger is not predicative is not false.

sent1: if something is a kind of non-exodontic thing that is predicative then the shortgrass is not a kind of a Azerbaijani. sent2: that the dagger is not an attack is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Illecebrum and it is a scapegoat. sent4: the fact that the dagger is not predicative is not wrong if the buster does not romance cornea. sent5: the shortgrass does not romance cornea but it is a kind of a Azerbaijani. sent6: the dagger is not a Azerbaijani. sent7: that the dagger does not romance cornea is true if something that is non-Azerbaijani is not non-predicative. sent8: the buster is not a Azerbaijani. sent9: something romances cornea if that it is a chamosite is right. sent10: if there exists something such that it does not romance cornea and it is Azerbaijani the buster is not exodontic. sent11: something is astronomic. sent12: there is something such that that it is a Azerbaijani and it does romance cornea hold. sent13: the shortgrass is not predicative if the fact that there is something such that it is not exodontic and it is a Azerbaijani is true. sent14: the shortgrass is a Azerbaijani. sent15: there are Azerbaijani things. sent16: if something is not permissible but a chamosite the semitrailer does not romance cornea. sent17: the buster does not romance cornea if there are non-exodontic and Azerbaijani things. sent18: if there exists something such that that it does not romance cornea hold the buster is not a Zygophyllum. sent19: the dagger is predicative if the buster romances cornea. sent20: something is both not permissible and a chamosite.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{BF}{b} sent3: (Ex): (¬{GH}x & {DG}x) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: (¬{A}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{AB}{b} sent7: (x): (¬{AB}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent11: (Ex): {AQ}x sent12: (Ex): ({AB}x & {A}x) sent13: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: {AB}{aa} sent15: (Ex): {AB}x sent16: (x): (¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{c} sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{CQ}{a} sent19: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent20: (Ex): (¬{D}x & {C}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dagger is predicative.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the dagger is not predicative is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of non-exodontic thing that is predicative then the shortgrass is not a kind of a Azerbaijani. sent2: that the dagger is not an attack is not incorrect. sent3: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Illecebrum and it is a scapegoat. sent4: the fact that the dagger is not predicative is not wrong if the buster does not romance cornea. sent5: the shortgrass does not romance cornea but it is a kind of a Azerbaijani. sent6: the dagger is not a Azerbaijani. sent7: that the dagger does not romance cornea is true if something that is non-Azerbaijani is not non-predicative. sent8: the buster is not a Azerbaijani. sent9: something romances cornea if that it is a chamosite is right. sent10: if there exists something such that it does not romance cornea and it is Azerbaijani the buster is not exodontic. sent11: something is astronomic. sent12: there is something such that that it is a Azerbaijani and it does romance cornea hold. sent13: the shortgrass is not predicative if the fact that there is something such that it is not exodontic and it is a Azerbaijani is true. sent14: the shortgrass is a Azerbaijani. sent15: there are Azerbaijani things. sent16: if something is not permissible but a chamosite the semitrailer does not romance cornea. sent17: the buster does not romance cornea if there are non-exodontic and Azerbaijani things. sent18: if there exists something such that that it does not romance cornea hold the buster is not a Zygophyllum. sent19: the dagger is predicative if the buster romances cornea. sent20: something is both not permissible and a chamosite. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if there exists something such that it does not romance cornea and it is Azerbaijani the buster is not exodontic.

if there exists something such that it does not romance cornea and it is Azerbaijani the buster is not exodontic.

if there exists something such that that it does not romance cornea hold the buster is not a Zygophyllum.

the Diegueno is news.

sent1: the Diegueno is not news if the hexose is a kind of an attractiveness. sent2: the fact that something is not an attractiveness and is Caroline if it is a Gobi is right. sent3: the hexose is not a kind of a preservative if it is non-invertible and does not diffract festering. sent4: if the hexose is not bacteroidal then it is not a butterbean. sent5: something that does administer paean is not a butterbean. sent6: the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret. sent7: the Diegueno is not news if either the hexose is not a Tongan or it is an attractiveness or both. sent8: the hexose regrets. sent9: the fact that something is not a kind of a Tongan and it does not regret is not right if it is not an attractiveness. sent10: if something diffracts phrase then it does administer paean and/or is not bacteroidal. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Tongan and does not regret does not hold it is news. sent12: the hexose is non-invertible thing that does not diffract festering if something is not an anode. sent13: the fact that the hexose does diffract phrase is right. sent14: the fact that if something whacks then it is not androgynous is correct. sent15: something is not an anode. sent16: the demander does not regret.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Diegueno is not androgynous if that it is a whacking is right.

{FT}{b} -> ¬{FM}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Diegueno is news. ; $context$ = sent1: the Diegueno is not news if the hexose is a kind of an attractiveness. sent2: the fact that something is not an attractiveness and is Caroline if it is a Gobi is right. sent3: the hexose is not a kind of a preservative if it is non-invertible and does not diffract festering. sent4: if the hexose is not bacteroidal then it is not a butterbean. sent5: something that does administer paean is not a butterbean. sent6: the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret. sent7: the Diegueno is not news if either the hexose is not a Tongan or it is an attractiveness or both. sent8: the hexose regrets. sent9: the fact that something is not a kind of a Tongan and it does not regret is not right if it is not an attractiveness. sent10: if something diffracts phrase then it does administer paean and/or is not bacteroidal. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Tongan and does not regret does not hold it is news. sent12: the hexose is non-invertible thing that does not diffract festering if something is not an anode. sent13: the fact that the hexose does diffract phrase is right. sent14: the fact that if something whacks then it is not androgynous is correct. sent15: something is not an anode. sent16: the demander does not regret. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the hexose is not a Tongan.; int1 -> int2: the hexose is not Tongan and/or is a kind of an attractiveness.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret.

If it does regret, the hexose is not a Tongan.

the hexose regrets.

the Diegueno is news.

sent1: the Diegueno is not news if the hexose is a kind of an attractiveness. sent2: the fact that something is not an attractiveness and is Caroline if it is a Gobi is right. sent3: the hexose is not a kind of a preservative if it is non-invertible and does not diffract festering. sent4: if the hexose is not bacteroidal then it is not a butterbean. sent5: something that does administer paean is not a butterbean. sent6: the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret. sent7: the Diegueno is not news if either the hexose is not a Tongan or it is an attractiveness or both. sent8: the hexose regrets. sent9: the fact that something is not a kind of a Tongan and it does not regret is not right if it is not an attractiveness. sent10: if something diffracts phrase then it does administer paean and/or is not bacteroidal. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Tongan and does not regret does not hold it is news. sent12: the hexose is non-invertible thing that does not diffract festering if something is not an anode. sent13: the fact that the hexose does diffract phrase is right. sent14: the fact that if something whacks then it is not androgynous is correct. sent15: something is not an anode. sent16: the demander does not regret.

{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Diegueno is not androgynous if that it is a whacking is right.

{FT}{b} -> ¬{FM}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the Diegueno is news. ; $context$ = sent1: the Diegueno is not news if the hexose is a kind of an attractiveness. sent2: the fact that something is not an attractiveness and is Caroline if it is a Gobi is right. sent3: the hexose is not a kind of a preservative if it is non-invertible and does not diffract festering. sent4: if the hexose is not bacteroidal then it is not a butterbean. sent5: something that does administer paean is not a butterbean. sent6: the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret. sent7: the Diegueno is not news if either the hexose is not a Tongan or it is an attractiveness or both. sent8: the hexose regrets. sent9: the fact that something is not a kind of a Tongan and it does not regret is not right if it is not an attractiveness. sent10: if something diffracts phrase then it does administer paean and/or is not bacteroidal. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Tongan and does not regret does not hold it is news. sent12: the hexose is non-invertible thing that does not diffract festering if something is not an anode. sent13: the fact that the hexose does diffract phrase is right. sent14: the fact that if something whacks then it is not androgynous is correct. sent15: something is not an anode. sent16: the demander does not regret. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent8 -> int1: the hexose is not a Tongan.; int1 -> int2: the hexose is not Tongan and/or is a kind of an attractiveness.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the hexose is not a Tongan if it does regret.

If the hexose does regret, it's not a Tongan.

the Diegueno is not news if either the hexose is not a Tongan or it is an attractiveness or both.

the cowrie is a stirrup.

sent1: something does not diffract unsatisfactoriness. sent2: the fact that the carrack does not share Kichaga is correct. sent3: something is not a stirrup or it does not share cowrie or both if it is condylar. sent4: if there exists something such that that it shares Kichaga and/or it is scentless is false then the cowrie is a stirrup. sent5: the stucco is not mechanical if the ctenophore administers nightwear. sent6: something is main and it diffracts don if the fact that it is modifiable is not right. sent7: something that is main is condylar. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not administer leaner is not wrong. sent9: the fact that the carrack does share Kichaga or is scentless or both is not true. sent10: the cuckoo is not modifiable if the fact that the stucco is both non-invertible and modifiable does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is non-invertible and modifiable is not right if it is not mechanical. sent12: the ctenophore administers nightwear if there is something such that that it is not a rigging and is not a topping is not correct. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a rigging and is not a kind of a topping does not hold. sent14: either something does share Kichaga or it is a stirrup or both.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the cowrie is not a stirrup.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cowrie is a stirrup. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not diffract unsatisfactoriness. sent2: the fact that the carrack does not share Kichaga is correct. sent3: something is not a stirrup or it does not share cowrie or both if it is condylar. sent4: if there exists something such that that it shares Kichaga and/or it is scentless is false then the cowrie is a stirrup. sent5: the stucco is not mechanical if the ctenophore administers nightwear. sent6: something is main and it diffracts don if the fact that it is modifiable is not right. sent7: something that is main is condylar. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not administer leaner is not wrong. sent9: the fact that the carrack does share Kichaga or is scentless or both is not true. sent10: the cuckoo is not modifiable if the fact that the stucco is both non-invertible and modifiable does not hold. sent11: the fact that something is non-invertible and modifiable is not right if it is not mechanical. sent12: the ctenophore administers nightwear if there is something such that that it is not a rigging and is not a topping is not correct. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a rigging and is not a kind of a topping does not hold. sent14: either something does share Kichaga or it is a stirrup or both. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it does share Kichaga or it is scentless or both is not right.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the carrack does share Kichaga or is scentless or both is not true.

the fact that the carrack does share Kichaga or is scentless or both is not true.

if there exists something such that that it shares Kichaga and/or it is scentless is false then the cowrie is a stirrup.

the Ecuadorian does not occur.

sent1: the halo occurs but the romancing speedometer does not occur. sent2: the terminologicalness does not occur. sent3: if the needlework occurs the biologism happens. sent4: the non-Ecuadorianness is brought about by that the biologism but not the correctedness occurs. sent5: the biologism happens if the heat occurs. sent6: if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold. sent7: the imperative does not occur if the terminologicalness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the imperative and/or the LIFO happens does not hold the fact that the correctedness does not occur is true. sent9: both the appearing and the non-keylessness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({EM} & ¬{EK}) sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {E} -> {C} sent4: ({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent5: {F} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent8: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ({EG} & ¬{AG})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Ecuadorian does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the halo occurs but the romancing speedometer does not occur. sent2: the terminologicalness does not occur. sent3: if the needlework occurs the biologism happens. sent4: the non-Ecuadorianness is brought about by that the biologism but not the correctedness occurs. sent5: the biologism happens if the heat occurs. sent6: if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold. sent7: the imperative does not occur if the terminologicalness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the imperative and/or the LIFO happens does not hold the fact that the correctedness does not occur is true. sent9: both the appearing and the non-keylessness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold.

The imperativeness or LIFO does not hold if the terminologicalness does not occur.

the terminologicalness does not occur.

the Ecuadorian does not occur.

sent1: the halo occurs but the romancing speedometer does not occur. sent2: the terminologicalness does not occur. sent3: if the needlework occurs the biologism happens. sent4: the non-Ecuadorianness is brought about by that the biologism but not the correctedness occurs. sent5: the biologism happens if the heat occurs. sent6: if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold. sent7: the imperative does not occur if the terminologicalness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the imperative and/or the LIFO happens does not hold the fact that the correctedness does not occur is true. sent9: both the appearing and the non-keylessness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({EM} & ¬{EK}) sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {E} -> {C} sent4: ({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D} sent5: {F} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent8: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ({EG} & ¬{AG})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Ecuadorian does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the halo occurs but the romancing speedometer does not occur. sent2: the terminologicalness does not occur. sent3: if the needlework occurs the biologism happens. sent4: the non-Ecuadorianness is brought about by that the biologism but not the correctedness occurs. sent5: the biologism happens if the heat occurs. sent6: if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold. sent7: the imperative does not occur if the terminologicalness does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the imperative and/or the LIFO happens does not hold the fact that the correctedness does not occur is true. sent9: both the appearing and the non-keylessness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the terminologicalness does not occur the fact that the imperativeness or the LIFO or both happens does not hold.

The imperativeness or the LIFO does not hold if the terminologicalness does not occur.

if the fact that the imperative and/or the LIFO happens does not hold the fact that the correctedness does not occur is true.

the flux does not occur.

sent1: that the recusation happens and the side-glance does not occur is not true if the administering quetzal occurs. sent2: if the romancing sickbay does not occur then that the arithmeticalness occurs but the coo does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that that the romancing Euclid occurs but the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold is not wrong the flux happens. sent4: the immorality happens if that the allomorphicness but not the company occurs is not right. sent5: the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not correct if the arithmeticalness happens. sent6: both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs. sent7: that the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not true is not wrong. sent8: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold if the arithmeticalness happens.

¬{E}

sent1: {IN} -> ¬({IE} & ¬{CB}) sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) -> {E} sent4: ¬({IP} & ¬{IF}) -> {DL} sent5: {B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the flux does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flux does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the recusation happens and the side-glance does not occur is not true if the administering quetzal occurs. sent2: if the romancing sickbay does not occur then that the arithmeticalness occurs but the coo does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that that the romancing Euclid occurs but the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold is not wrong the flux happens. sent4: the immorality happens if that the allomorphicness but not the company occurs is not right. sent5: the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not correct if the arithmeticalness happens. sent6: both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs. sent7: that the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not true is not wrong. sent8: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold if the arithmeticalness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the arithmeticalness happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs.

The coo and the arithmeticalness occur.

the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold if the arithmeticalness happens.

the flux does not occur.

sent1: that the recusation happens and the side-glance does not occur is not true if the administering quetzal occurs. sent2: if the romancing sickbay does not occur then that the arithmeticalness occurs but the coo does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that that the romancing Euclid occurs but the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold is not wrong the flux happens. sent4: the immorality happens if that the allomorphicness but not the company occurs is not right. sent5: the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not correct if the arithmeticalness happens. sent6: both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs. sent7: that the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not true is not wrong. sent8: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold if the arithmeticalness happens.

¬{E}

sent1: {IN} -> ¬({IE} & ¬{CB}) sent2: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) -> {E} sent4: ¬({IP} & ¬{IF}) -> {DL} sent5: {B} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the flux does not occur.

¬{E}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the flux does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the recusation happens and the side-glance does not occur is not true if the administering quetzal occurs. sent2: if the romancing sickbay does not occur then that the arithmeticalness occurs but the coo does not occur is wrong. sent3: if the fact that that the romancing Euclid occurs but the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold is not wrong the flux happens. sent4: the immorality happens if that the allomorphicness but not the company occurs is not right. sent5: the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not correct if the arithmeticalness happens. sent6: both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs. sent7: that the fact that both the romancing Euclid and the romancing sickbay happens is not true is not wrong. sent8: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold if the arithmeticalness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the arithmeticalness happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the romancing Euclid occurs and the romancing sickbay does not occur is incorrect.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the coo and the arithmeticalness occurs.

The coo and the arithmeticalness occur at the same time.

if the fact that that the romancing Euclid occurs but the romancing sickbay does not occur does not hold is not wrong the flux happens.

that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct.

sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Arabian is stemless.; sent1 -> int3: if that the Arabian purports is right then it is multiform.; sent4 & sent7 -> int4: the Arabian does purport.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Arabian is multiform.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

The affenpinscher does share Centranthus if the vinyl administers assizes.

the vinyl does administer assizes.

that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct.

sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Arabian is stemless.; sent1 -> int3: if that the Arabian purports is right then it is multiform.; sent4 & sent7 -> int4: the Arabian does purport.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Arabian is multiform.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

If the vinyl administers assizes, the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong.

that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct.

sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Arabian is stemless.; sent1 -> int3: if that the Arabian purports is right then it is multiform.; sent4 & sent7 -> int4: the Arabian does purport.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Arabian is multiform.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

The affenpinscher shares Centranthus if the vinyl administers assizes.

if something does purport it is multiform.

that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct.

sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Arabian is stemless.; sent1 -> int3: if that the Arabian purports is right then it is multiform.; sent4 & sent7 -> int4: the Arabian does purport.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Arabian is multiform.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

The affenpinscher does share Centranthus with the vinyl administering assizes.

there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things.

that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct.

sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the Arabian is stemless and it is multiform is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does purport it is multiform. sent2: if the affenpinscher does share Centranthus the fact that the Arabian is stemless is not wrong. sent3: the vinyl does administer assizes. sent4: there are non-sedimentary and majuscule things. sent5: if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus. sent6: The assizes does administer vinyl. sent7: if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the Arabian is stemless.; sent1 -> int3: if that the Arabian purports is right then it is multiform.; sent4 & sent7 -> int4: the Arabian does purport.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Arabian is multiform.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the vinyl administers assizes then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

If the vinyl administers assizes, then the affenpinscher does share Centranthus.

if a non-sedimentary thing is majuscule the Arabian does purport.

that there is something such that it is not inoperative and is a sharp is incorrect.

sent1: if something does flare the robe is monochromatic and it does romance mint. sent2: there exists something such that it does romance pasta. sent3: the formaldehyde is a sharp if the robe groans. sent4: there exists something such that it is not inoperative. sent5: if something does not diffract clast then it is a arboriculture and/or it is a groan. sent6: something channelizes if it is recessionary. sent7: if something romances mint and channelizes then it does not diffract clast. sent8: there is something such that it is inoperative and it is a sharp. sent9: the analgesic is not a arboriculture and is a kind of a sharp. sent10: if the robe is a arboriculture then the analgesic is a sharp. sent11: everything does not mingle. sent12: if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture the analgesic is not inoperative but a sharp. sent13: the formaldehyde is not non-sharp if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture. sent14: something is a arboriculture. sent15: there exists something such that it is a flare. sent16: something is recessionary thing that is a kind of a Daviesia if it does not mingle. sent17: the robe is a kind of a arboriculture.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the formaldehyde is sharp.

{AB}{ft}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that it is not inoperative and is a sharp is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does flare the robe is monochromatic and it does romance mint. sent2: there exists something such that it does romance pasta. sent3: the formaldehyde is a sharp if the robe groans. sent4: there exists something such that it is not inoperative. sent5: if something does not diffract clast then it is a arboriculture and/or it is a groan. sent6: something channelizes if it is recessionary. sent7: if something romances mint and channelizes then it does not diffract clast. sent8: there is something such that it is inoperative and it is a sharp. sent9: the analgesic is not a arboriculture and is a kind of a sharp. sent10: if the robe is a arboriculture then the analgesic is a sharp. sent11: everything does not mingle. sent12: if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture the analgesic is not inoperative but a sharp. sent13: the formaldehyde is not non-sharp if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture. sent14: something is a arboriculture. sent15: there exists something such that it is a flare. sent16: something is recessionary thing that is a kind of a Daviesia if it does not mingle. sent17: the robe is a kind of a arboriculture. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent17 -> int1: the analgesic is a kind of operative thing that is sharp.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture the analgesic is not inoperative but a sharp.

if the robe is a kind of a arboriculture the analgesic is not inoperative but a sharp.

the robe is a kind of a arboriculture.

that something is not a squeezer is not incorrect.

sent1: the fact that the annoyance is not bryophytic but it is impressionable is incorrect. sent2: the doctorfish is not a squeezer if there is something such that that it is not bryophytic but impressionable is incorrect. sent3: that there exists something such that it is a kind of a squeezer is not incorrect. sent4: something is not a scrunch. sent5: the annoyance is not a switch. sent6: there exists something such that that it is bryophytic thing that is impressionable is not true. sent7: if the rough is a Laban the fact that it shares insulation and it is not a squeezer is not correct. sent8: the doctorfish is not a Nabokov. sent9: the doctorfish is not impressionable if there exists something such that that it is not bryophytic and it is a squeezer does not hold. sent10: that the annoyance is a kind of bryophytic thing that is impressionable does not hold. sent11: something is a Laban if it is brimless. sent12: there is something such that it is not bryophytic and it is impressionable. sent13: the annoyance is not a fir. sent14: the doctorfish is not bryophytic if there is something such that that it is not a squeezer and it is impressionable does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x

sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{CH}x sent5: ¬{FK}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬({AJ}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent8: ¬{IE}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent10: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent12: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: ¬{AT}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

there is something such that it does not share insulation.

(Ex): ¬{AJ}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that something is not a squeezer is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the annoyance is not bryophytic but it is impressionable is incorrect. sent2: the doctorfish is not a squeezer if there is something such that that it is not bryophytic but impressionable is incorrect. sent3: that there exists something such that it is a kind of a squeezer is not incorrect. sent4: something is not a scrunch. sent5: the annoyance is not a switch. sent6: there exists something such that that it is bryophytic thing that is impressionable is not true. sent7: if the rough is a Laban the fact that it shares insulation and it is not a squeezer is not correct. sent8: the doctorfish is not a Nabokov. sent9: the doctorfish is not impressionable if there exists something such that that it is not bryophytic and it is a squeezer does not hold. sent10: that the annoyance is a kind of bryophytic thing that is impressionable does not hold. sent11: something is a Laban if it is brimless. sent12: there is something such that it is not bryophytic and it is impressionable. sent13: the annoyance is not a fir. sent14: the doctorfish is not bryophytic if there is something such that that it is not a squeezer and it is impressionable does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: there is something such that that it is a kind of non-bryophytic thing that is impressionable is incorrect.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the doctorfish is not a kind of a squeezer.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the annoyance is not bryophytic but it is impressionable is incorrect.

the fact that the annoyance is not bryophytic but it is impressionable is incorrect.

the doctorfish is not a squeezer if there is something such that that it is not bryophytic but impressionable is incorrect.

the breechcloth is not suctorial.

sent1: the sachem is a correctness. sent2: if the nympholept repines then it is not a correctness. sent3: if something administers turquoise it shares thunderclap. sent4: the company does not repine. sent5: something is suctorial if it does repine. sent6: something repines and it is suctorial if it is not a correctness. sent7: if the nympholept is a correctness it does not repine. sent8: the ferment does not repine. sent9: the breechcloth does not diffract prolamine if it does not repine. sent10: if the bellbird does not administer turquoise and/or does administer insolence the nympholept does administer turquoise. sent11: the bellbird does not administer turquoise or administers insolence or both if the solderer is associative. sent12: if something is not grapelike it is not a earth-goddess. sent13: something that is not suctorial does not repine. sent14: the ICBM does not repine. sent15: something is not suctorial if that it does not diffract prolamine hold. sent16: if the nympholept does repine the breechcloth is a kind of a correctness. sent17: something is not suctorial if it does romance salesperson. sent18: the breechcloth does share Klimt. sent19: if something is a correctness then it does not diffract prolamine. sent20: the nympholept does diffract prolamine if that it does share thunderclap is not false. sent21: that the bellbird does not share thunderclap and/or does not administer turquoise is not correct.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: {B}{eq} sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent4: ¬{A}{eo} sent5: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent7: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{as} sent9: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{C}{b} sent10: (¬{F}{c} v {H}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent11: {G}{d} -> (¬{F}{c} v {H}{c}) sent12: (x): ¬{EL}x -> ¬{JG}x sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{A}x sent14: ¬{A}{bl} sent15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent16: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent17: (x): {FA}x -> ¬{D}x sent18: {JH}{b} sent19: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent20: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent21: ¬(¬{E}{c} v ¬{F}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

if the polonium does romance salesperson then it is not suctorial.

{FA}{bo} -> ¬{D}{bo}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the breechcloth is not suctorial. ; $context$ = sent1: the sachem is a correctness. sent2: if the nympholept repines then it is not a correctness. sent3: if something administers turquoise it shares thunderclap. sent4: the company does not repine. sent5: something is suctorial if it does repine. sent6: something repines and it is suctorial if it is not a correctness. sent7: if the nympholept is a correctness it does not repine. sent8: the ferment does not repine. sent9: the breechcloth does not diffract prolamine if it does not repine. sent10: if the bellbird does not administer turquoise and/or does administer insolence the nympholept does administer turquoise. sent11: the bellbird does not administer turquoise or administers insolence or both if the solderer is associative. sent12: if something is not grapelike it is not a earth-goddess. sent13: something that is not suctorial does not repine. sent14: the ICBM does not repine. sent15: something is not suctorial if that it does not diffract prolamine hold. sent16: if the nympholept does repine the breechcloth is a kind of a correctness. sent17: something is not suctorial if it does romance salesperson. sent18: the breechcloth does share Klimt. sent19: if something is a correctness then it does not diffract prolamine. sent20: the nympholept does diffract prolamine if that it does share thunderclap is not false. sent21: that the bellbird does not share thunderclap and/or does not administer turquoise is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something is a correctness then it does not diffract prolamine.

if something is a correctness then it does not diffract prolamine.

something is not suctorial if that it does not diffract prolamine hold.

the nominating does not occur.

sent1: if the solitaire happens then the nominating does not occur. sent2: if the romancing variedness happens then that the administering coke does not occur and/or the administering correctness does not occur is not true. sent3: that the allowableness does not occur is right. sent4: the administering coke occurs. sent5: the repetition does not occur if the sharing whitebait and/or the fantan happens. sent6: the incongruentness does not occur. sent7: the allowableness does not occur but the cabin occurs. sent8: the nominating happens if the solitaire does not occur. sent9: the nominating does not occur if the solitaire happens and/or the administering coke happens. sent10: that the romancing variedness does not occur and the diffracting crapette does not occur is triggered by that the sharing whitebait does not occur. sent11: the solitaire does not occur if the fact that either the administering coke does not occur or the administering correctness does not occur or both does not hold. sent12: if the romancing discontentment does not occur then not the sharing whitebait but the saponaceousness happens. sent13: that the freeing does not occur hold if the impacting or the autumnalness or both happens. sent14: the autumnalness leads to that the preliminary does not occur and the committing does not occur. sent15: the nonmetallicness occurs and the autumnalness happens if the allowableness does not occur. sent16: that the preliminary does not occur and the committing does not occur yields that the romancing discontentment happens. sent17: if the saponaceousness occurs the sharing whitebait does not occur. sent18: either the by-line or the opticalness or both occurs. sent19: if the autumnalness occurs the preliminary happens and/or the committing does not occur. sent20: that the allowableness does not occur and the nonmetallicness does not occur causes that the autumnalness happens. sent21: if the sharing whitebait does not occur then both the diffracting crapette and the romancing variedness occurs. sent22: if that the solitaire happens and/or the administering coke does not occur is wrong the canfield does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: {A} -> ¬{C} sent2: {E} -> ¬(¬{B} v ¬{D}) sent3: ¬{N} sent4: {B} sent5: ({G} v {IS}) -> ¬{CD} sent6: ¬{AN} sent7: (¬{N} & {O}) sent8: ¬{A} -> {C} sent9: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent11: ¬(¬{B} v ¬{D}) -> ¬{A} sent12: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent13: ({EG} v {L}) -> ¬{GU} sent14: {L} -> (¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent15: ¬{N} -> ({M} & {L}) sent16: (¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> {I} sent17: {H} -> ¬{G} sent18: ({GL} v {IU}) sent19: {L} -> ({J} v ¬{K}) sent20: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> {L} sent21: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent22: ¬({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{CM}

PROVED

PROVED

the nominating happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the nominating does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the solitaire happens then the nominating does not occur. sent2: if the romancing variedness happens then that the administering coke does not occur and/or the administering correctness does not occur is not true. sent3: that the allowableness does not occur is right. sent4: the administering coke occurs. sent5: the repetition does not occur if the sharing whitebait and/or the fantan happens. sent6: the incongruentness does not occur. sent7: the allowableness does not occur but the cabin occurs. sent8: the nominating happens if the solitaire does not occur. sent9: the nominating does not occur if the solitaire happens and/or the administering coke happens. sent10: that the romancing variedness does not occur and the diffracting crapette does not occur is triggered by that the sharing whitebait does not occur. sent11: the solitaire does not occur if the fact that either the administering coke does not occur or the administering correctness does not occur or both does not hold. sent12: if the romancing discontentment does not occur then not the sharing whitebait but the saponaceousness happens. sent13: that the freeing does not occur hold if the impacting or the autumnalness or both happens. sent14: the autumnalness leads to that the preliminary does not occur and the committing does not occur. sent15: the nonmetallicness occurs and the autumnalness happens if the allowableness does not occur. sent16: that the preliminary does not occur and the committing does not occur yields that the romancing discontentment happens. sent17: if the saponaceousness occurs the sharing whitebait does not occur. sent18: either the by-line or the opticalness or both occurs. sent19: if the autumnalness occurs the preliminary happens and/or the committing does not occur. sent20: that the allowableness does not occur and the nonmetallicness does not occur causes that the autumnalness happens. sent21: if the sharing whitebait does not occur then both the diffracting crapette and the romancing variedness occurs. sent22: if that the solitaire happens and/or the administering coke does not occur is wrong the canfield does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the solitaire occurs or the administering coke happens or both.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the administering coke occurs.

the administering coke occurs.

the nominating does not occur if the solitaire happens and/or the administering coke happens.

there exists something such that it is not responsible.

sent1: the brig is a cloister. sent2: there are responsible things. sent3: the fact that the polypropenonitrile cloisters and it is a kind of a forwarding does not hold if it is not responsible. sent4: if the fact that something is not a disgustingness or is a say or both is incorrect it is irresponsible. sent5: if something is unworldly that it either is not a disgustingness or says or both is not true. sent6: the polypropenonitrile is a kind of a reciprocal. sent7: something does not cloister if that it is a kind of a cloister and is a forwarding is wrong. sent8: the patzer is not responsible if the Bohemian is reciprocal. sent9: the polypropenonitrile is a cloister.

(Ex): ¬{C}x

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the exegete is a kind of a reciprocal.

{B}{cc}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not responsible. ; $context$ = sent1: the brig is a cloister. sent2: there are responsible things. sent3: the fact that the polypropenonitrile cloisters and it is a kind of a forwarding does not hold if it is not responsible. sent4: if the fact that something is not a disgustingness or is a say or both is incorrect it is irresponsible. sent5: if something is unworldly that it either is not a disgustingness or says or both is not true. sent6: the polypropenonitrile is a kind of a reciprocal. sent7: something does not cloister if that it is a kind of a cloister and is a forwarding is wrong. sent8: the patzer is not responsible if the Bohemian is reciprocal. sent9: the polypropenonitrile is a cloister. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the polypropenonitrile cloisters and it is a kind of a forwarding does not hold if it is not responsible.

the fact that the polypropenonitrile cloisters and it is a kind of a forwarding does not hold if it is not responsible.

if the fact that something is not a disgustingness or is a say or both is incorrect it is irresponsible.

the hawse is ribless.

sent1: there is something such that that it romances Marks and is ribless is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that that it is a high-mindedness and does diffract going-over does not hold. sent3: the fornication diffracts recrudescence and it is a ultramontane. sent4: the fornication is a Cash. sent5: the fornication is a high-mindedness. sent6: something romances Marks and it is ribless. sent7: there exists something such that it is ribless and it does romance Marks. sent8: if there is something such that it is not ribless the fornication is sessile. sent9: the fornication does diffract going-over. sent10: if the hawse romances Marks the fact that the fornication is ribless is correct. sent11: something is not ribless and romances Marks if it is not a ultramontane. sent12: the fornication does romance Marks if there exists something such that it is not a high-mindedness. sent13: if something does share obscureness then it is not a kind of a ultramontane and it does diffract recrudescence. sent14: the hawse romances Marks if the fornication is ribless. sent15: if the fact that something is non-ribless thing that does not romance Marks does not hold it romance Marks. sent16: the hawse is a high-mindedness if the fornication romances Marks. sent17: the fact that the hawse does diffract going-over is correct. sent18: the hawse is ribless if the fornication does romance Marks.

{B}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the tympanum romances Marks.

{A}{cm}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the hawse is ribless. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it romances Marks and is ribless is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that that it is a high-mindedness and does diffract going-over does not hold. sent3: the fornication diffracts recrudescence and it is a ultramontane. sent4: the fornication is a Cash. sent5: the fornication is a high-mindedness. sent6: something romances Marks and it is ribless. sent7: there exists something such that it is ribless and it does romance Marks. sent8: if there is something such that it is not ribless the fornication is sessile. sent9: the fornication does diffract going-over. sent10: if the hawse romances Marks the fact that the fornication is ribless is correct. sent11: something is not ribless and romances Marks if it is not a ultramontane. sent12: the fornication does romance Marks if there exists something such that it is not a high-mindedness. sent13: if something does share obscureness then it is not a kind of a ultramontane and it does diffract recrudescence. sent14: the hawse romances Marks if the fornication is ribless. sent15: if the fact that something is non-ribless thing that does not romance Marks does not hold it romance Marks. sent16: the hawse is a high-mindedness if the fornication romances Marks. sent17: the fact that the hawse does diffract going-over is correct. sent18: the hawse is ribless if the fornication does romance Marks. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fornication diffracts recrudescence and it is a ultramontane.

the fornication diffracts recrudescence and it is a ultramontane.

the fornication does diffract going-over.

the vitality happens.

sent1: if the sacralness does not occur the lancers does not occur. sent2: if the mitzvah does not occur the playfulness but not the high-low-jack happens. sent3: if the fact that the mitzvah happens and the high-low-jack happens is wrong the vitality does not occur. sent4: that both the romancing CD and the diffracting aldosterone occurs yields that the diffracting lithograph does not occur. sent5: if the lancers does not occur then the fact that the reveille happens and the abdominalness happens is false. sent6: that the romancing stockpile does not occur causes that the sacralness does not occur and the barrage does not occur. sent7: the lancers does not occur if the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur. sent8: the vitality occurs if the fact that the reveille does not occur and the abdominal happens does not hold. sent9: the abdominal does not occur if the vitality happens and the reveille does not occur. sent10: if the romancing stockpile does not occur then the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur. sent11: if the reveille occurs the vitality occurs. sent12: if the diffracting lithograph does not occur not the romancing stockpile but the fastball happens. sent13: that the mitzvah occurs is true. sent14: that the vitality occurs but the reveille does not occur is caused by that the lancers does not occur. sent15: the fact that the fact that not the reveille but the abdominal occurs hold is wrong if the quiescence occurs. sent16: that the reveille happens and the abdominal occurs does not hold. sent17: if the high-low-jack happens the quiescence occurs. sent18: that the reveille and the abdominal occurs is incorrect if the quiescence occurs.

{F}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the playfulness happens.

{EA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the vitality happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sacralness does not occur the lancers does not occur. sent2: if the mitzvah does not occur the playfulness but not the high-low-jack happens. sent3: if the fact that the mitzvah happens and the high-low-jack happens is wrong the vitality does not occur. sent4: that both the romancing CD and the diffracting aldosterone occurs yields that the diffracting lithograph does not occur. sent5: if the lancers does not occur then the fact that the reveille happens and the abdominalness happens is false. sent6: that the romancing stockpile does not occur causes that the sacralness does not occur and the barrage does not occur. sent7: the lancers does not occur if the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur. sent8: the vitality occurs if the fact that the reveille does not occur and the abdominal happens does not hold. sent9: the abdominal does not occur if the vitality happens and the reveille does not occur. sent10: if the romancing stockpile does not occur then the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur. sent11: if the reveille occurs the vitality occurs. sent12: if the diffracting lithograph does not occur not the romancing stockpile but the fastball happens. sent13: that the mitzvah occurs is true. sent14: that the vitality occurs but the reveille does not occur is caused by that the lancers does not occur. sent15: the fact that the fact that not the reveille but the abdominal occurs hold is wrong if the quiescence occurs. sent16: that the reveille happens and the abdominal occurs does not hold. sent17: if the high-low-jack happens the quiescence occurs. sent18: that the reveille and the abdominal occurs is incorrect if the quiescence occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the lancers does not occur if the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur.

the lancers does not occur if the barrage does not occur and the sacralness does not occur.

that the reveille happens and the abdominal occurs does not hold.

the saponin does share ordinal and/or is a kind of a daleth.

sent1: the saponin is a borage and/or it is a kind of a daleth. sent2: the bandwagon is not a OWLT and is a polyfoam. sent3: the saponin is Danish and/or is a daleth. sent4: something is not sexagesimal and shares ordinal if it is a daleth. sent5: the keyboardist is both not apomictic and sacrificial. sent6: the saponin does share ordinal if the letterman is a kind of a borage that is a polyfoam. sent7: the letterman is necromantic. sent8: the letterman is a borage or shares ordinal or both. sent9: the letterman is not a borage but it is a polyfoam. sent10: the letterman is a daleth. sent11: the letterman is not a borage but it is a daleth. sent12: that the saponin shares ordinal is correct if that the letterman is not a borage but it is a kind of a polyfoam is correct.

({B}{b} v {A}{b})

sent1: ({AA}{b} v {A}{b}) sent2: (¬{BH}{db} & {AB}{db}) sent3: ({EN}{b} v {A}{b}) sent4: (x): {A}x -> (¬{M}x & {B}x) sent5: (¬{HT}{fj} & {FL}{fj}) sent6: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent7: {IP}{a} sent8: ({AA}{a} v {B}{a}) sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent12: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

the confidant is not sexagesimal but it does share ordinal.

(¬{M}{jb} & {B}{jb})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the saponin does share ordinal and/or is a kind of a daleth. ; $context$ = sent1: the saponin is a borage and/or it is a kind of a daleth. sent2: the bandwagon is not a OWLT and is a polyfoam. sent3: the saponin is Danish and/or is a daleth. sent4: something is not sexagesimal and shares ordinal if it is a daleth. sent5: the keyboardist is both not apomictic and sacrificial. sent6: the saponin does share ordinal if the letterman is a kind of a borage that is a polyfoam. sent7: the letterman is necromantic. sent8: the letterman is a borage or shares ordinal or both. sent9: the letterman is not a borage but it is a polyfoam. sent10: the letterman is a daleth. sent11: the letterman is not a borage but it is a daleth. sent12: that the saponin shares ordinal is correct if that the letterman is not a borage but it is a kind of a polyfoam is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the saponin does share ordinal hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the saponin shares ordinal is correct if that the letterman is not a borage but it is a kind of a polyfoam is correct.

that the saponin shares ordinal is correct if that the letterman is not a borage but it is a kind of a polyfoam is correct.

the letterman is not a borage but it is a polyfoam.

the audio is not an incendiary.

sent1: if the fact that the landscaping does not romance leaner and does not diffract landscaping is correct then the clipboard is not a kind of a Ionian. sent2: if the fact that something does romance leaner and it is an incendiary is not correct it does not romance leaner. sent3: if the clipboard romances leaner but it is not a kind of a fungible then the audio is not an incendiary. sent4: if that the landscaping is not a kind of a Ionian but it diffracts landscaping is wrong then it is a kind of a fungible. sent5: if the fact that the clipboard is both not a fungible and incendiary is not true then it diffracts landscaping. sent6: if something is not a fungible that it romances leaner and is a kind of an incendiary does not hold. sent7: if the landscaping does not diffract landscaping but it does romance leaner then the clipboard is not a fungible. sent8: if the clipboard does not romance leaner but it is a kind of a fungible the audio is not an incendiary. sent9: that the landscaping is Ionian and diffracts landscaping is not true. sent10: the clipboard does not romance leaner and it is not a fungible if the landscaping is a fungible. sent11: if the clipboard is not non-Ionian then the landscaping is not a kind of a non-Ionian. sent12: the audio is not incendiary if the clipboard does not romance leaner and it is not a fungible.

¬{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the audio does not romance leaner.

¬{A}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the audio is not an incendiary. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the landscaping does not romance leaner and does not diffract landscaping is correct then the clipboard is not a kind of a Ionian. sent2: if the fact that something does romance leaner and it is an incendiary is not correct it does not romance leaner. sent3: if the clipboard romances leaner but it is not a kind of a fungible then the audio is not an incendiary. sent4: if that the landscaping is not a kind of a Ionian but it diffracts landscaping is wrong then it is a kind of a fungible. sent5: if the fact that the clipboard is both not a fungible and incendiary is not true then it diffracts landscaping. sent6: if something is not a fungible that it romances leaner and is a kind of an incendiary does not hold. sent7: if the landscaping does not diffract landscaping but it does romance leaner then the clipboard is not a fungible. sent8: if the clipboard does not romance leaner but it is a kind of a fungible the audio is not an incendiary. sent9: that the landscaping is Ionian and diffracts landscaping is not true. sent10: the clipboard does not romance leaner and it is not a fungible if the landscaping is a fungible. sent11: if the clipboard is not non-Ionian then the landscaping is not a kind of a non-Ionian. sent12: the audio is not incendiary if the clipboard does not romance leaner and it is not a fungible. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the clipboard romances leaner but it is not a kind of a fungible then the audio is not an incendiary.

if the clipboard romances leaner but it is not a kind of a fungible then the audio is not an incendiary.

the clipboard does not romance leaner and it is not a fungible if the landscaping is a fungible.

the muscle is a fatherhood.

sent1: if the see does romance nonparticipant the muscle is a kind of a fatherhood. sent2: the see is not a parget if that the nonparticipant is a Lindheimera or it does parget or both is wrong. sent3: the muscle does romance nonparticipant. sent4: the wakeboard does share homonymy if the pleaser does share homonymy. sent5: if the pleaser is identifiable then the fact that it does not romance foster-son is right. sent6: the muscle is anemophilous if the see is a fatherhood. sent7: the see romances nonparticipant and/or is not anemophilous if it is not a kind of a parget. sent8: the muscle is anemophilous. sent9: that if something is not ceramic that it is a kind of a Lindheimera or it does parget or both is false hold. sent10: that something is a ceramic is not wrong if it does share homonymy. sent11: something puzzles and does share homonymy if it does not romance foster-son. sent12: the nonparticipant is non-ceramic if the wakeboard is non-ceramic. sent13: the pleaser is identifiable. sent14: that the millet romances nonparticipant hold.

{C}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the muscle is not a fatherhood is not wrong.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the muscle is a fatherhood. ; $context$ = sent1: if the see does romance nonparticipant the muscle is a kind of a fatherhood. sent2: the see is not a parget if that the nonparticipant is a Lindheimera or it does parget or both is wrong. sent3: the muscle does romance nonparticipant. sent4: the wakeboard does share homonymy if the pleaser does share homonymy. sent5: if the pleaser is identifiable then the fact that it does not romance foster-son is right. sent6: the muscle is anemophilous if the see is a fatherhood. sent7: the see romances nonparticipant and/or is not anemophilous if it is not a kind of a parget. sent8: the muscle is anemophilous. sent9: that if something is not ceramic that it is a kind of a Lindheimera or it does parget or both is false hold. sent10: that something is a ceramic is not wrong if it does share homonymy. sent11: something puzzles and does share homonymy if it does not romance foster-son. sent12: the nonparticipant is non-ceramic if the wakeboard is non-ceramic. sent13: the pleaser is identifiable. sent14: that the millet romances nonparticipant hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the millet romances nonparticipant hold.

that the millet romances nonparticipant hold.

the pleaser is identifiable.

there is something such that it is not a kind of a farmhouse and it is a kind of a chinquapin.

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a chinquapin is not incorrect. sent2: the Syrian is not a chinquapin but it is fertile. sent3: if something does not diffract Indianan then it is not a round. sent4: there is something such that it is not a farmhouse. sent5: if the sawwort is non-round then it is not a farmhouse and is a chinquapin. sent6: if the sawwort is not round then it is a chinquapin. sent7: the contester is not a farmhouse. sent8: the sawwort is a kind of a chinquapin. sent9: if the sawwort is non-fertile then it does not pother and shares Apodidae. sent10: the sawwort is non-round. sent11: the sawwort does not diffract Skeat but it is a kind of a Ruth. sent12: something is a farmhouse that is a kind of a chinquapin.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: (Ex): {AB}x sent2: (¬{AB}{ai} & {JF}{ai}) sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent7: ¬{AA}{gn} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: ¬{JF}{a} -> (¬{GL}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: (¬{IC}{a} & {DK}{a}) sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x)

PROVED

PROVED

there exists something such that it is not uncertain and it is a temp.

(Ex): (¬{R}x & {CO}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not a kind of a farmhouse and it is a kind of a chinquapin. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a chinquapin is not incorrect. sent2: the Syrian is not a chinquapin but it is fertile. sent3: if something does not diffract Indianan then it is not a round. sent4: there is something such that it is not a farmhouse. sent5: if the sawwort is non-round then it is not a farmhouse and is a chinquapin. sent6: if the sawwort is not round then it is a chinquapin. sent7: the contester is not a farmhouse. sent8: the sawwort is a kind of a chinquapin. sent9: if the sawwort is non-fertile then it does not pother and shares Apodidae. sent10: the sawwort is non-round. sent11: the sawwort does not diffract Skeat but it is a kind of a Ruth. sent12: something is a farmhouse that is a kind of a chinquapin. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent10 -> int1: the sawwort is not a farmhouse but it is a kind of a chinquapin.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the sawwort is non-round then it is not a farmhouse and is a chinquapin.

if the sawwort is non-round then it is not a farmhouse and is a chinquapin.

the sawwort is non-round.

the saltation does diffract Callisaurus.

sent1: that the saltation is a dink and/or it is an assay is not true. sent2: if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary. sent3: something that is not deflationary does diffract Callisaurus and is a dormitory. sent4: if the saltation is not a kind of a siphonophore it is a dink and it does romance contraband. sent5: the saltation is not a slat. sent6: the saltation is not a dink.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the saltation does diffract Callisaurus. ; $context$ = sent1: that the saltation is a dink and/or it is an assay is not true. sent2: if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary. sent3: something that is not deflationary does diffract Callisaurus and is a dormitory. sent4: if the saltation is not a kind of a siphonophore it is a dink and it does romance contraband. sent5: the saltation is not a slat. sent6: the saltation is not a dink. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the saltation is not deflationary.; sent3 -> int2: if that the saltation is not deflationary hold then it diffracts Callisaurus and it is a dormitory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the saltation does diffract Callisaurus and it is a kind of a dormitory.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary.

If the saltation is not correct, then it is not deflationary.

that the saltation is a dink and/or it is an assay is not true.

the saltation does diffract Callisaurus.

sent1: that the saltation is a dink and/or it is an assay is not true. sent2: if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary. sent3: something that is not deflationary does diffract Callisaurus and is a dormitory. sent4: if the saltation is not a kind of a siphonophore it is a dink and it does romance contraband. sent5: the saltation is not a slat. sent6: the saltation is not a dink.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the saltation does diffract Callisaurus. ; $context$ = sent1: that the saltation is a dink and/or it is an assay is not true. sent2: if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary. sent3: something that is not deflationary does diffract Callisaurus and is a dormitory. sent4: if the saltation is not a kind of a siphonophore it is a dink and it does romance contraband. sent5: the saltation is not a slat. sent6: the saltation is not a dink. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the saltation is not deflationary.; sent3 -> int2: if that the saltation is not deflationary hold then it diffracts Callisaurus and it is a dormitory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the saltation does diffract Callisaurus and it is a kind of a dormitory.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that the saltation is a dink and/or it is a kind of an assay is not correct then it is not deflationary.

If the saltation is not correct then it is not deflationary.

something that is not deflationary does diffract Callisaurus and is a dormitory.

the frond is a stroboscope.

sent1: something is a kind of an agar that romances holography if it does not share style. sent2: the fact that the style does not share style is right. sent3: there is something such that it is transcendental. sent4: that the frond is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is false if there are transcendental things. sent5: if the fact that something is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is not right then it is a stroboscope. sent6: something romances Gawain if it romances holography. sent7: something is not transcendental but it is affixal if it romances Gawain.

{D}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the frond is not a stroboscope.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frond is a stroboscope. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of an agar that romances holography if it does not share style. sent2: the fact that the style does not share style is right. sent3: there is something such that it is transcendental. sent4: that the frond is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is false if there are transcendental things. sent5: if the fact that something is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is not right then it is a stroboscope. sent6: something romances Gawain if it romances holography. sent7: something is not transcendental but it is affixal if it romances Gawain. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the frond is a kind of non-affixal thing that does not romance Gawain does not hold.; sent5 -> int2: if that the frond is non-affixal thing that does not romance Gawain does not hold it is a stroboscope.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is transcendental.

There is something that is not ordinary.

that the frond is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is false if there are transcendental things.

the frond is a stroboscope.

sent1: something is a kind of an agar that romances holography if it does not share style. sent2: the fact that the style does not share style is right. sent3: there is something such that it is transcendental. sent4: that the frond is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is false if there are transcendental things. sent5: if the fact that something is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is not right then it is a stroboscope. sent6: something romances Gawain if it romances holography. sent7: something is not transcendental but it is affixal if it romances Gawain.

{D}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the frond is not a stroboscope.

¬{D}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the frond is a stroboscope. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of an agar that romances holography if it does not share style. sent2: the fact that the style does not share style is right. sent3: there is something such that it is transcendental. sent4: that the frond is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is false if there are transcendental things. sent5: if the fact that something is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is not right then it is a stroboscope. sent6: something romances Gawain if it romances holography. sent7: something is not transcendental but it is affixal if it romances Gawain. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the frond is a kind of non-affixal thing that does not romance Gawain does not hold.; sent5 -> int2: if that the frond is non-affixal thing that does not romance Gawain does not hold it is a stroboscope.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is transcendental.

There is something that is not normal.

if the fact that something is not affixal and it does not romance Gawain is not right then it is a stroboscope.

the overstraining does not occur.

sent1: that the radiopacity happens and the Comstockery happens does not hold. sent2: the fact that the non-Manichaeanness and the con occurs is not right. sent3: the overstrain happens if that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens is not right. sent4: if the thirstiness happens then not the overstrain but the polymorphism happens. sent5: if the radiopacity occurs then the overstrain happens. sent6: the sharing cornea occurs. sent7: the uppercut happens if the fact that the broadcasting does not occur and the singularness happens is wrong. sent8: the fact that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens does not hold. sent9: that the diffracting redress does not occur leads to that the thirstiness happens and the penileness happens.

¬{B}

sent1: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent2: ¬(¬{HQ} & {GO}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent4: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent5: {AA} -> {B} sent6: {HB} sent7: ¬(¬{AN} & {IP}) -> {HL} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the overstrain does not occur.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the overstraining does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the radiopacity happens and the Comstockery happens does not hold. sent2: the fact that the non-Manichaeanness and the con occurs is not right. sent3: the overstrain happens if that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens is not right. sent4: if the thirstiness happens then not the overstrain but the polymorphism happens. sent5: if the radiopacity occurs then the overstrain happens. sent6: the sharing cornea occurs. sent7: the uppercut happens if the fact that the broadcasting does not occur and the singularness happens is wrong. sent8: the fact that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens does not hold. sent9: that the diffracting redress does not occur leads to that the thirstiness happens and the penileness happens. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the overstrain happens if that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens is not right.

the overstrain happens if that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens is not right.

the fact that not the radiopacity but the Comstockery happens does not hold.

the fact that the Dipper is a lifer and it is a fulminate is right.

sent1: the Dipper is a kind of a lifer if the countryside is not a fulminate. sent2: the Dipper is both a lifer and aerophilatelic. sent3: if the llano is a kind of thermostatic thing that is not vesicular the fact that the countryside is not vesicular hold. sent4: if the countryside is not vesicular then it is not jittery. sent5: if the countryside is not a fulminate the Dipper is a lifer and a fulminate. sent6: if there is something such that it is not a chubbiness then that the wit is bronchoscopic and it administers voyager is not right. sent7: if the wit is not alpine the countryside is not a fulminate. sent8: the countryside is not bronchoscopic. sent9: if something is not a Regalecidae that it is a kind of a chubbiness and it is a alienee is incorrect. sent10: if something is not jittery then it is not a Regalecidae and does not administer mopper. sent11: the Wampanoag is not bronchoscopic if it does not romance battle and it is aerophilatelic. sent12: the Dipper is a lifer. sent13: if there is something such that that it is bronchoscopic and it does administer voyager does not hold then the Wampanoag is alpine. sent14: if the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is non-aerophilatelic it is not bronchoscopic. sent15: the llano is evolutionary if the Northeast is evolutionary. sent16: the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is not aerophilatelic. sent17: the Wampanoag does not logroll. sent18: if the fact that something is a kind of a chubbiness and it is a kind of a alienee is incorrect then it is not a chubbiness. sent19: if the Wampanoag romances battle and is not aerophilatelic then it is not bronchoscopic. sent20: something is thermostatic but it is not vesicular if it is evolutionary. sent21: the Northeast is evolutionary.

({D}{d} & {C}{d})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Dipper is a kind of a lifer that fulminates is not true.

¬({D}{d} & {C}{d})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Dipper is a lifer and it is a fulminate is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the Dipper is a kind of a lifer if the countryside is not a fulminate. sent2: the Dipper is both a lifer and aerophilatelic. sent3: if the llano is a kind of thermostatic thing that is not vesicular the fact that the countryside is not vesicular hold. sent4: if the countryside is not vesicular then it is not jittery. sent5: if the countryside is not a fulminate the Dipper is a lifer and a fulminate. sent6: if there is something such that it is not a chubbiness then that the wit is bronchoscopic and it administers voyager is not right. sent7: if the wit is not alpine the countryside is not a fulminate. sent8: the countryside is not bronchoscopic. sent9: if something is not a Regalecidae that it is a kind of a chubbiness and it is a alienee is incorrect. sent10: if something is not jittery then it is not a Regalecidae and does not administer mopper. sent11: the Wampanoag is not bronchoscopic if it does not romance battle and it is aerophilatelic. sent12: the Dipper is a lifer. sent13: if there is something such that that it is bronchoscopic and it does administer voyager does not hold then the Wampanoag is alpine. sent14: if the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is non-aerophilatelic it is not bronchoscopic. sent15: the llano is evolutionary if the Northeast is evolutionary. sent16: the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is not aerophilatelic. sent17: the Wampanoag does not logroll. sent18: if the fact that something is a kind of a chubbiness and it is a kind of a alienee is incorrect then it is not a chubbiness. sent19: if the Wampanoag romances battle and is not aerophilatelic then it is not bronchoscopic. sent20: something is thermostatic but it is not vesicular if it is evolutionary. sent21: the Northeast is evolutionary. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is non-aerophilatelic it is not bronchoscopic.

if the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is non-aerophilatelic it is not bronchoscopic.

the Wampanoag does not romance battle and is not aerophilatelic.

that the tarwood romances Varanus and is not a kind of a Blair is incorrect.

sent1: the tarwood does romance Varanus but it is not enthusiastic. sent2: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous. sent3: the fact that the slops is not scotomatous is wrong. sent4: if the Wampanoag is enthusiastic the tarwood does romance Varanus and is not a Blair.

¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the tarwood romances Varanus and is not a kind of a Blair is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the tarwood does romance Varanus but it is not enthusiastic. sent2: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous. sent3: the fact that the slops is not scotomatous is wrong. sent4: if the Wampanoag is enthusiastic the tarwood does romance Varanus and is not a Blair. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous.

If the slops is scotomatous, the Wampanoag is excited.

the fact that the slops is not scotomatous is wrong.

that the tarwood romances Varanus and is not a kind of a Blair is incorrect.

sent1: the tarwood does romance Varanus but it is not enthusiastic. sent2: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous. sent3: the fact that the slops is not scotomatous is wrong. sent4: if the Wampanoag is enthusiastic the tarwood does romance Varanus and is not a Blair.

¬({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the tarwood romances Varanus and is not a kind of a Blair is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the tarwood does romance Varanus but it is not enthusiastic. sent2: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous. sent3: the fact that the slops is not scotomatous is wrong. sent4: if the Wampanoag is enthusiastic the tarwood does romance Varanus and is not a Blair. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the Wampanoag is enthusiastic.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Wampanoag is enthusiastic if the slops is scotomatous.

If the slops is scotomatous, the Wampanoag is enthusiastic.

if the Wampanoag is enthusiastic the tarwood does romance Varanus and is not a Blair.

the ethnographer is a azimuth.

sent1: if something that is a unfriendliness romances S-shape the shopkeeper romances paganism. sent2: the ethnographer is a belt. sent3: if that the yo-yo is a nosedive or not a unfriendliness or both is incorrect then the shopkeeper is not a unfriendliness. sent4: if the shopkeeper romances paganism then the fact that the ethnographer is a kind of a azimuth hold. sent5: if the shopkeeper is not a unfriendliness then that the ethnographer is a kind of a azimuth and does not romance S-shape does not hold. sent6: everything does romance S-shape.

{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the ethnographer is not a azimuth.

¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ethnographer is a azimuth. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that is a unfriendliness romances S-shape the shopkeeper romances paganism. sent2: the ethnographer is a belt. sent3: if that the yo-yo is a nosedive or not a unfriendliness or both is incorrect then the shopkeeper is not a unfriendliness. sent4: if the shopkeeper romances paganism then the fact that the ethnographer is a kind of a azimuth hold. sent5: if the shopkeeper is not a unfriendliness then that the ethnographer is a kind of a azimuth and does not romance S-shape does not hold. sent6: everything does romance S-shape. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ethnographer is a belt.

the ethnographer is a belt.

if that the yo-yo is a nosedive or not a unfriendliness or both is incorrect then the shopkeeper is not a unfriendliness.

the fact that the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and does gut is not true.

sent1: if that the spadefish is scorbutic is right it is a gut. sent2: the corymb does not share Eugene. sent3: the fact that the corymb does not romance Tenebrionidae is not false. sent4: that the corymb is an oblique that is a musnud is not right. sent5: the corymb is not precancerous. sent6: the fact that the corymb is a holothurian that does share Eugene does not hold. sent7: the corymb does not share Eugene if it is non-precancerous. sent8: the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae if the corymb is precancerous. sent9: the fact that the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae and it is a gut is not correct if the corymb does not romance Beckley. sent10: if something is not Masoretic it is both a Pitt and scorbutic. sent11: the corymb romances oarswoman and romances Simarouba if the fact that the neologist is not a kind of a national is true. sent12: if the spadefish does not share Eugene that the corymb romances Tenebrionidae and is a gut is not right. sent13: the spadefish is non-precancerous thing that does not gut if that it does not romance Beckley hold. sent14: if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley. sent15: something is precancerous if it romances oarswoman. sent16: the fact that the lesbian does not romance Tenebrionidae hold.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: {E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬({FR}{a} & {JG}{a}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬({HM}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({F}x & {E}x) sent11: ¬{H}{c} -> ({D}{a} & {G}{a}) sent12: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent15: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent16: ¬{B}{eq}

PROVED

PROVED

the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and is a gut.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and does gut is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the spadefish is scorbutic is right it is a gut. sent2: the corymb does not share Eugene. sent3: the fact that the corymb does not romance Tenebrionidae is not false. sent4: that the corymb is an oblique that is a musnud is not right. sent5: the corymb is not precancerous. sent6: the fact that the corymb is a holothurian that does share Eugene does not hold. sent7: the corymb does not share Eugene if it is non-precancerous. sent8: the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae if the corymb is precancerous. sent9: the fact that the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae and it is a gut is not correct if the corymb does not romance Beckley. sent10: if something is not Masoretic it is both a Pitt and scorbutic. sent11: the corymb romances oarswoman and romances Simarouba if the fact that the neologist is not a kind of a national is true. sent12: if the spadefish does not share Eugene that the corymb romances Tenebrionidae and is a gut is not right. sent13: the spadefish is non-precancerous thing that does not gut if that it does not romance Beckley hold. sent14: if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley. sent15: something is precancerous if it romances oarswoman. sent16: the fact that the lesbian does not romance Tenebrionidae hold. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent5 -> int1: the corymb does not share Eugene and it does not romance Beckley.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the corymb does not romance Beckley is not wrong.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley.

Eugene and Beckley do not romance each other if the corymb is not precancerous.

the corymb is not precancerous.

the fact that the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and does gut is not true.

sent1: if that the spadefish is scorbutic is right it is a gut. sent2: the corymb does not share Eugene. sent3: the fact that the corymb does not romance Tenebrionidae is not false. sent4: that the corymb is an oblique that is a musnud is not right. sent5: the corymb is not precancerous. sent6: the fact that the corymb is a holothurian that does share Eugene does not hold. sent7: the corymb does not share Eugene if it is non-precancerous. sent8: the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae if the corymb is precancerous. sent9: the fact that the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae and it is a gut is not correct if the corymb does not romance Beckley. sent10: if something is not Masoretic it is both a Pitt and scorbutic. sent11: the corymb romances oarswoman and romances Simarouba if the fact that the neologist is not a kind of a national is true. sent12: if the spadefish does not share Eugene that the corymb romances Tenebrionidae and is a gut is not right. sent13: the spadefish is non-precancerous thing that does not gut if that it does not romance Beckley hold. sent14: if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley. sent15: something is precancerous if it romances oarswoman. sent16: the fact that the lesbian does not romance Tenebrionidae hold.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: {E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬({FR}{a} & {JG}{a}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬({HM}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({F}x & {E}x) sent11: ¬{H}{c} -> ({D}{a} & {G}{a}) sent12: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: ¬{AB}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent15: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent16: ¬{B}{eq}

PROVED

PROVED

the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and is a gut.

({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the spadefish does romance Tenebrionidae and does gut is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the spadefish is scorbutic is right it is a gut. sent2: the corymb does not share Eugene. sent3: the fact that the corymb does not romance Tenebrionidae is not false. sent4: that the corymb is an oblique that is a musnud is not right. sent5: the corymb is not precancerous. sent6: the fact that the corymb is a holothurian that does share Eugene does not hold. sent7: the corymb does not share Eugene if it is non-precancerous. sent8: the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae if the corymb is precancerous. sent9: the fact that the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae and it is a gut is not correct if the corymb does not romance Beckley. sent10: if something is not Masoretic it is both a Pitt and scorbutic. sent11: the corymb romances oarswoman and romances Simarouba if the fact that the neologist is not a kind of a national is true. sent12: if the spadefish does not share Eugene that the corymb romances Tenebrionidae and is a gut is not right. sent13: the spadefish is non-precancerous thing that does not gut if that it does not romance Beckley hold. sent14: if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley. sent15: something is precancerous if it romances oarswoman. sent16: the fact that the lesbian does not romance Tenebrionidae hold. ; $proof$ =

sent14 & sent5 -> int1: the corymb does not share Eugene and it does not romance Beckley.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the corymb does not romance Beckley is not wrong.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the corymb is not precancerous then it does not share Eugene and does not romance Beckley.

Eugene and Beckley do not romance one another if the corymb is not precancerous.

the fact that the spadefish romances Tenebrionidae and it is a gut is not correct if the corymb does not romance Beckley.

the residue is not a kind of a partitionist.

sent1: the dining-room is part-time if the orlop is not a kind of a forgiveness and it is not a morion. sent2: if the stateroom is not avuncular the orlop is an anglophile and diffracts centare. sent3: if the orlop is not a forgiveness the fact that the dining-room is a kind of a morion and it is part-time does not hold. sent4: if the residue is not part-time the stateroom is not a unconventionality but it is a partitionist. sent5: if the perversion is not avuncular the orlop does diffract centare and is not an anglophile. sent6: that the residue is not a unconventionality is right. sent7: if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect. sent8: something that does not share Pitot is not a partitionist. sent9: the fact that if something diffracts centare and is not an anglophile then it is not a forgiveness is correct. sent10: if the residue is not a kind of a SSS the fact that it does confide and it is not a partitionist is wrong. sent11: if that something is Gallican but it is not a kind of a silverbush does not hold then it does not diffract textured. sent12: the fact that the stateroom is avuncular does not hold if the fact that the perversion is non-avuncular thing that does share energy is false. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something shares Pitot and does not busk is correct is false then it is not a partitionist. sent14: something is not a forgiveness and is not a morion if it diffracts centare. sent15: the residue is not a partitionist if it does not share Pitot.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent3: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{A}{d} & {B}{d}) sent5: ¬{H}{e} -> ({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent9: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ¬{JK}{a} -> ¬({BP}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬({FO}x & ¬{BO}x) -> ¬{EU}x sent12: ¬(¬{H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent13: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the residue is a partitionist.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the residue is not a kind of a partitionist. ; $context$ = sent1: the dining-room is part-time if the orlop is not a kind of a forgiveness and it is not a morion. sent2: if the stateroom is not avuncular the orlop is an anglophile and diffracts centare. sent3: if the orlop is not a forgiveness the fact that the dining-room is a kind of a morion and it is part-time does not hold. sent4: if the residue is not part-time the stateroom is not a unconventionality but it is a partitionist. sent5: if the perversion is not avuncular the orlop does diffract centare and is not an anglophile. sent6: that the residue is not a unconventionality is right. sent7: if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect. sent8: something that does not share Pitot is not a partitionist. sent9: the fact that if something diffracts centare and is not an anglophile then it is not a forgiveness is correct. sent10: if the residue is not a kind of a SSS the fact that it does confide and it is not a partitionist is wrong. sent11: if that something is Gallican but it is not a kind of a silverbush does not hold then it does not diffract textured. sent12: the fact that the stateroom is avuncular does not hold if the fact that the perversion is non-avuncular thing that does share energy is false. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something shares Pitot and does not busk is correct is false then it is not a partitionist. sent14: something is not a forgiveness and is not a morion if it diffracts centare. sent15: the residue is not a partitionist if it does not share Pitot. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the residue does share Pitot but it does not busk is incorrect.; sent13 -> int2: if the fact that the residue shares Pitot and does not busk is wrong it is not a kind of a partitionist.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect.

If it's not unconventional, then it's correct that it shares Pitot and doesn't busk.

that the residue is not a unconventionality is right.

the residue is not a kind of a partitionist.

sent1: the dining-room is part-time if the orlop is not a kind of a forgiveness and it is not a morion. sent2: if the stateroom is not avuncular the orlop is an anglophile and diffracts centare. sent3: if the orlop is not a forgiveness the fact that the dining-room is a kind of a morion and it is part-time does not hold. sent4: if the residue is not part-time the stateroom is not a unconventionality but it is a partitionist. sent5: if the perversion is not avuncular the orlop does diffract centare and is not an anglophile. sent6: that the residue is not a unconventionality is right. sent7: if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect. sent8: something that does not share Pitot is not a partitionist. sent9: the fact that if something diffracts centare and is not an anglophile then it is not a forgiveness is correct. sent10: if the residue is not a kind of a SSS the fact that it does confide and it is not a partitionist is wrong. sent11: if that something is Gallican but it is not a kind of a silverbush does not hold then it does not diffract textured. sent12: the fact that the stateroom is avuncular does not hold if the fact that the perversion is non-avuncular thing that does share energy is false. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something shares Pitot and does not busk is correct is false then it is not a partitionist. sent14: something is not a forgiveness and is not a morion if it diffracts centare. sent15: the residue is not a partitionist if it does not share Pitot.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent3: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{A}{d} & {B}{d}) sent5: ¬{H}{e} -> ({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent9: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: ¬{JK}{a} -> ¬({BP}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬({FO}x & ¬{BO}x) -> ¬{EU}x sent12: ¬(¬{H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} sent13: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the residue is a partitionist.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the residue is not a kind of a partitionist. ; $context$ = sent1: the dining-room is part-time if the orlop is not a kind of a forgiveness and it is not a morion. sent2: if the stateroom is not avuncular the orlop is an anglophile and diffracts centare. sent3: if the orlop is not a forgiveness the fact that the dining-room is a kind of a morion and it is part-time does not hold. sent4: if the residue is not part-time the stateroom is not a unconventionality but it is a partitionist. sent5: if the perversion is not avuncular the orlop does diffract centare and is not an anglophile. sent6: that the residue is not a unconventionality is right. sent7: if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect. sent8: something that does not share Pitot is not a partitionist. sent9: the fact that if something diffracts centare and is not an anglophile then it is not a forgiveness is correct. sent10: if the residue is not a kind of a SSS the fact that it does confide and it is not a partitionist is wrong. sent11: if that something is Gallican but it is not a kind of a silverbush does not hold then it does not diffract textured. sent12: the fact that the stateroom is avuncular does not hold if the fact that the perversion is non-avuncular thing that does share energy is false. sent13: if the fact that the fact that something shares Pitot and does not busk is correct is false then it is not a partitionist. sent14: something is not a forgiveness and is not a morion if it diffracts centare. sent15: the residue is not a partitionist if it does not share Pitot. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the residue does share Pitot but it does not busk is incorrect.; sent13 -> int2: if the fact that the residue shares Pitot and does not busk is wrong it is not a kind of a partitionist.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if that the residue is not a unconventionality is correct then that it shares Pitot and does not busk is incorrect.

If that is not unconventionality, then it is incorrect to say that it shares Pitot and does not busk.

if the fact that the fact that something shares Pitot and does not busk is correct is false then it is not a partitionist.

the amatungulu is a astrolabe.

sent1: if the dairymaid is ritualistic then the amatungulu is a astrolabe. sent2: the dairymaid is not non-ritualistic and not non-taxonomic if there exists something such that that it dilapidates is correct. sent3: something is a RV if it does dilapidate. sent4: there is something such that it does dilapidate. sent5: if something is taxonomic then the dairymaid is a astrolabe and is ritualistic. sent6: the fact that the amatungulu is not the astrolabe and dilapidates if the amatungulu is not ritualistic is not false. sent7: the blowtube is ritualistic.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dairymaid is a kind of a RV.

{EH}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the amatungulu is a astrolabe. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dairymaid is ritualistic then the amatungulu is a astrolabe. sent2: the dairymaid is not non-ritualistic and not non-taxonomic if there exists something such that that it dilapidates is correct. sent3: something is a RV if it does dilapidate. sent4: there is something such that it does dilapidate. sent5: if something is taxonomic then the dairymaid is a astrolabe and is ritualistic. sent6: the fact that the amatungulu is not the astrolabe and dilapidates if the amatungulu is not ritualistic is not false. sent7: the blowtube is ritualistic. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 -> int1: the dairymaid is ritualistic and it is taxonomic.; int1 -> int2: the dairymaid is ritualistic.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does dilapidate.

There is something that makes SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

the dairymaid is not non-ritualistic and not non-taxonomic if there exists something such that that it dilapidates is correct.

the amatungulu is a astrolabe.

sent1: if the dairymaid is ritualistic then the amatungulu is a astrolabe. sent2: the dairymaid is not non-ritualistic and not non-taxonomic if there exists something such that that it dilapidates is correct. sent3: something is a RV if it does dilapidate. sent4: there is something such that it does dilapidate. sent5: if something is taxonomic then the dairymaid is a astrolabe and is ritualistic. sent6: the fact that the amatungulu is not the astrolabe and dilapidates if the amatungulu is not ritualistic is not false. sent7: the blowtube is ritualistic.

{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the dairymaid is a kind of a RV.

{EH}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the amatungulu is a astrolabe. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dairymaid is ritualistic then the amatungulu is a astrolabe. sent2: the dairymaid is not non-ritualistic and not non-taxonomic if there exists something such that that it dilapidates is correct. sent3: something is a RV if it does dilapidate. sent4: there is something such that it does dilapidate. sent5: if something is taxonomic then the dairymaid is a astrolabe and is ritualistic. sent6: the fact that the amatungulu is not the astrolabe and dilapidates if the amatungulu is not ritualistic is not false. sent7: the blowtube is ritualistic. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent2 -> int1: the dairymaid is ritualistic and it is taxonomic.; int1 -> int2: the dairymaid is ritualistic.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it does dilapidate.

There is something that makes SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA for SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA

if the dairymaid is ritualistic then the amatungulu is a astrolabe.

the slapping does not occur.

sent1: the postmeridianness does not occur if the fact that the hyperemicness does not occur and the rowing does not occur is wrong. sent2: the hyperemicness does not occur. sent3: the archaisticness does not occur. sent4: the slap is triggered by that the hyperemicness happens. sent5: if that the hyperemicness does not occur hold the fact that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs does not hold. sent6: the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs. sent7: that that not the muckraking but the nonhumanness happens is not true is correct if the immunologicalness does not occur. sent8: the archaisticness does not occur if the slapping occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{IA} sent2: ¬{B} sent3: ¬{AA} sent4: {B} -> {A} sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬{CT} -> ¬(¬{AR} & {FU}) sent8: {A} -> ¬{AA}

PROVED

PROVED

both the non-postmeridianness and the offingness happens.

(¬{IA} & {HJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the slapping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the postmeridianness does not occur if the fact that the hyperemicness does not occur and the rowing does not occur is wrong. sent2: the hyperemicness does not occur. sent3: the archaisticness does not occur. sent4: the slap is triggered by that the hyperemicness happens. sent5: if that the hyperemicness does not occur hold the fact that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs does not hold. sent6: the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs. sent7: that that not the muckraking but the nonhumanness happens is not true is correct if the immunologicalness does not occur. sent8: the archaisticness does not occur if the slapping occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slapping occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the archaisticness does not occur and the romancing habitability happens.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability happens is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs.

The non-archaisticness is caused by the slap.

if that the hyperemicness does not occur hold the fact that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs does not hold.

the slapping does not occur.

sent1: the postmeridianness does not occur if the fact that the hyperemicness does not occur and the rowing does not occur is wrong. sent2: the hyperemicness does not occur. sent3: the archaisticness does not occur. sent4: the slap is triggered by that the hyperemicness happens. sent5: if that the hyperemicness does not occur hold the fact that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs does not hold. sent6: the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs. sent7: that that not the muckraking but the nonhumanness happens is not true is correct if the immunologicalness does not occur. sent8: the archaisticness does not occur if the slapping occurs.

¬{A}

sent1: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{IA} sent2: ¬{B} sent3: ¬{AA} sent4: {B} -> {A} sent5: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent7: ¬{CT} -> ¬(¬{AR} & {FU}) sent8: {A} -> ¬{AA}

PROVED

PROVED

both the non-postmeridianness and the offingness happens.

(¬{IA} & {HJ})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the slapping does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the postmeridianness does not occur if the fact that the hyperemicness does not occur and the rowing does not occur is wrong. sent2: the hyperemicness does not occur. sent3: the archaisticness does not occur. sent4: the slap is triggered by that the hyperemicness happens. sent5: if that the hyperemicness does not occur hold the fact that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs does not hold. sent6: the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs. sent7: that that not the muckraking but the nonhumanness happens is not true is correct if the immunologicalness does not occur. sent8: the archaisticness does not occur if the slapping occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the slapping occurs.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the archaisticness does not occur and the romancing habitability happens.; sent5 & sent2 -> int2: that both the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability happens is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the slap causes that the non-archaisticness and the romancing habitability occurs.

The non-archaisticness and romancing habitability are caused by the slap.

the hyperemicness does not occur.

the salivation is a field.

sent1: if the theologian does not diffract Gawain then the fornication is not malignant. sent2: the fornication is malignant if the theologian is not malignant. sent3: the theologian is bulbar. sent4: if something is not bulbar that it fields hold. sent5: the fornication is not malignant if that the theologian is not malignant is not incorrect. sent6: the fornication is malignant if the salivation is bulbar. sent7: if something is not bulbar then it diffracts Gawain. sent8: something does not field if the fact that it is a kind of a field that is not malignant is not right.

{C}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the salivation does not field.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the salivation is a field. ; $context$ = sent1: if the theologian does not diffract Gawain then the fornication is not malignant. sent2: the fornication is malignant if the theologian is not malignant. sent3: the theologian is bulbar. sent4: if something is not bulbar that it fields hold. sent5: the fornication is not malignant if that the theologian is not malignant is not incorrect. sent6: the fornication is malignant if the salivation is bulbar. sent7: if something is not bulbar then it diffracts Gawain. sent8: something does not field if the fact that it is a kind of a field that is not malignant is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fornication is malignant if the salivation is bulbar.

the fornication is malignant if the salivation is bulbar.

if something is not bulbar that it fields hold.

the spruce is not a kind of a desk.

sent1: if the putz does not scale ironworks it is a crowbait. sent2: the putz either does not nip dialectology or is infinitival or both. sent3: the putz does not scale ironworks and/or it is bentonitic. sent4: that the putz is bentonitic hold if it is a desk. sent5: if the putz does not scale ironworks or is bentonitic or both then it is a crowbait. sent6: the putz scales ironworks and/or it is bentonitic. sent7: the spruce is not a desk if the putz is a kind of a crowbait that does crab sporting. sent8: the chapterhouse is a entrepot that is a kind of a dad. sent9: the spruce is a crowbait. sent10: that something is a crowbait and crabs sporting is not correct if it is not a permutation. sent11: if the putz is a permutation that it does crab sporting hold. sent12: the inkle is a kind of a permutation. sent13: the spruce is a kind of a desk and it is a kind of a permutation if that the putz does not crab sporting is not wrong.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: ¬{F}{a} -> {C}{a} sent2: (¬{EN}{a} v {CH}{a}) sent3: (¬{F}{a} v {E}{a}) sent4: {D}{a} -> {E}{a} sent5: (¬{F}{a} v {E}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent6: ({F}{a} v {E}{a}) sent7: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: ({FG}{bu} & {EO}{bu}) sent9: {C}{b} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent11: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {A}{fh} sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the kirpan does not crab sporting.

¬{B}{fb}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the spruce is not a kind of a desk. ; $context$ = sent1: if the putz does not scale ironworks it is a crowbait. sent2: the putz either does not nip dialectology or is infinitival or both. sent3: the putz does not scale ironworks and/or it is bentonitic. sent4: that the putz is bentonitic hold if it is a desk. sent5: if the putz does not scale ironworks or is bentonitic or both then it is a crowbait. sent6: the putz scales ironworks and/or it is bentonitic. sent7: the spruce is not a desk if the putz is a kind of a crowbait that does crab sporting. sent8: the chapterhouse is a entrepot that is a kind of a dad. sent9: the spruce is a crowbait. sent10: that something is a crowbait and crabs sporting is not correct if it is not a permutation. sent11: if the putz is a permutation that it does crab sporting hold. sent12: the inkle is a kind of a permutation. sent13: the spruce is a kind of a desk and it is a kind of a permutation if that the putz does not crab sporting is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the putz does not scale ironworks or is bentonitic or both then it is a crowbait.

if the putz does not scale ironworks or is bentonitic or both then it is a crowbait.

the putz does not scale ironworks and/or it is bentonitic.

the gin does not scale bridgehead.

sent1: the gin does scale bridgehead if the syphilitic does not crab geezer. sent2: the bridgehead is a kind of a brimstone that is a Vinca. sent3: if the fact that the gin does not scale bridgehead and is broadband hold it is a kind of a Vinca. sent4: if something that is a brimstone is a kind of a Vinca the syphilitic does not crab geezer.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the carhop does crab geezer and filiates transformer.

({C}{aq} & {EA}{aq})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gin does not scale bridgehead. ; $context$ = sent1: the gin does scale bridgehead if the syphilitic does not crab geezer. sent2: the bridgehead is a kind of a brimstone that is a Vinca. sent3: if the fact that the gin does not scale bridgehead and is broadband hold it is a kind of a Vinca. sent4: if something that is a brimstone is a kind of a Vinca the syphilitic does not crab geezer. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: something is both a brimstone and a Vinca.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the syphilitic does not crab geezer.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bridgehead is a kind of a brimstone that is a Vinca.

The bridgehead is a Vinca.

if something that is a brimstone is a kind of a Vinca the syphilitic does not crab geezer.

the gin does not scale bridgehead.

sent1: the gin does scale bridgehead if the syphilitic does not crab geezer. sent2: the bridgehead is a kind of a brimstone that is a Vinca. sent3: if the fact that the gin does not scale bridgehead and is broadband hold it is a kind of a Vinca. sent4: if something that is a brimstone is a kind of a Vinca the syphilitic does not crab geezer.

¬{D}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the carhop does crab geezer and filiates transformer.