Datasets:

cestwc

/

FLD_gen

like 0

the fenoprofen is not a wood-fern.

sent1: if the californium is not fatty and/or is not chylific then the fenoprofen is not a kind of a wood-fern. sent2: either the californium is not fatty or it is chylific or both if the sister-in-law is not an eon. sent3: the sister-in-law does not luxuriate. sent4: the learner is a ministry. sent5: the fact that that the californium is a kind of febrile thing that impugns ultimatum is true is not true if something does not impugns ultimatum. sent6: the sister-in-law is not chylific if the fact that either the californium is not an eon or it is not fatty or both hold. sent7: if that something is febrile and does impugn ultimatum is wrong it does not impugn ultimatum. sent8: if the sister-in-law is not a kind of an eon the californium is fatty and/or it is non-chylific. sent9: the phlogiston does not impugn ultimatum if the learner is a kind of a ministry and is a loot. sent10: either the californium is fatty or it is not chylific or both. sent11: the californium is not fatty and/or it is chylific. sent12: if the fenoprofen is not fatty the californium is not a kind of an eon and/or is not a wood-fern. sent13: that the sister-in-law is a kind of a spin and it is a kind of an eon is wrong if the californium does not impugn ultimatum. sent14: everything does loot and does ripen cephalometry. sent15: the californium is not fatty and/or it is not chylific if the sister-in-law is not a kind of an eon. sent16: the sister-in-law is not an eon.

¬{B}{c}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the fenoprofen is a wood-fern is not wrong.

{B}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fenoprofen is not a wood-fern. ; $context$ = sent1: if the californium is not fatty and/or is not chylific then the fenoprofen is not a kind of a wood-fern. sent2: either the californium is not fatty or it is chylific or both if the sister-in-law is not an eon. sent3: the sister-in-law does not luxuriate. sent4: the learner is a ministry. sent5: the fact that that the californium is a kind of febrile thing that impugns ultimatum is true is not true if something does not impugns ultimatum. sent6: the sister-in-law is not chylific if the fact that either the californium is not an eon or it is not fatty or both hold. sent7: if that something is febrile and does impugn ultimatum is wrong it does not impugn ultimatum. sent8: if the sister-in-law is not a kind of an eon the californium is fatty and/or it is non-chylific. sent9: the phlogiston does not impugn ultimatum if the learner is a kind of a ministry and is a loot. sent10: either the californium is fatty or it is not chylific or both. sent11: the californium is not fatty and/or it is chylific. sent12: if the fenoprofen is not fatty the californium is not a kind of an eon and/or is not a wood-fern. sent13: that the sister-in-law is a kind of a spin and it is a kind of an eon is wrong if the californium does not impugn ultimatum. sent14: everything does loot and does ripen cephalometry. sent15: the californium is not fatty and/or it is not chylific if the sister-in-law is not a kind of an eon. sent16: the sister-in-law is not an eon. ; $proof$ =

sent15 & sent16 -> int1: the californium is non-fatty or non-chylific or both.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the californium is not fatty and/or it is not chylific if the sister-in-law is not a kind of an eon.

It is not chylific if the sister-in-law is not a kind of eon.

if the californium is not fatty and/or is not chylific then the fenoprofen is not a kind of a wood-fern.

the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm.

sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

sent1: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent3: (x): {F}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: {G}{e} sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬{FG}{c} -> ¬{BR}{c} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{AA}x sent10: {G}{e} -> {F}{d} sent11: ¬(¬{AU}{bl} & {CF}{bl}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{iq} sent14: ¬{AB}{c} -> ¬{A}{c} sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent16: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent19: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Protestant is eastern and does not impugn wpm.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the thermohydrometer is not a gossip.; sent5 -> int2: the thermohydrometer is not eastern if the fact that it is not a gossip hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the thermohydrometer is not eastern.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false.

If the truth about the lie is false, the thermohydrometer does not gossip.

that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true.

the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm.

sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

sent1: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent3: (x): {F}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: {G}{e} sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬{FG}{c} -> ¬{BR}{c} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{AA}x sent10: {G}{e} -> {F}{d} sent11: ¬(¬{AU}{bl} & {CF}{bl}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{iq} sent14: ¬{AB}{c} -> ¬{A}{c} sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent16: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent19: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Protestant is eastern and does not impugn wpm.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the thermohydrometer is not a gossip.; sent5 -> int2: the thermohydrometer is not eastern if the fact that it is not a gossip hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the thermohydrometer is not eastern.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false.

If the truth about the lie is false, the thermohydrometer will not gossip.

if something does not gossip then it is not eastern.

the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm.

sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

sent1: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent3: (x): {F}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent4: {G}{e} sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬{FG}{c} -> ¬{BR}{c} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{AA}x sent10: {G}{e} -> {F}{d} sent11: ¬(¬{AU}{bl} & {CF}{bl}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{iq} sent14: ¬{AB}{c} -> ¬{A}{c} sent15: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent16: ¬({A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent17: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent19: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Protestant is eastern and does not impugn wpm.

({A}{c} & ¬{C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Protestant is eastern but it does not impugn wpm. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is not right if the fact that that the thermohydrometer is eastern does not hold is right. sent2: that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does derive hold the thermohydrometer is not a lymphoma. sent4: the recording is a balkiness. sent5: if something does not gossip then it is not eastern. sent6: that that the lie is not a Swanson but it is a kind of a MRI is incorrect is true. sent7: the Protestant is non-patristics if it is not Yemeni. sent8: that the lie is a kind of a Swanson that is a MRI is not true. sent9: if something is not a MRI it is not a kind of a Swanson. sent10: if the recording is a balkiness the hurdles does derive. sent11: the fact that that the gumwood does not undervalue but it is Jacobinic is not right is correct. sent12: the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false. sent13: the chromite is not a gossip. sent14: the Protestant is not eastern if that it is not a kind of a MRI is not false. sent15: if something is not a lymphoma then that it is both not a gossip and not endermic does not hold. sent16: that the Protestant is eastern and it does impugn wpm is wrong. sent17: if the lie is a kind of a Swanson the thermohydrometer does not gossip. sent18: the fact that the lie is a kind of a MRI that is not eastern is not right. sent19: the lie is not a Swanson if the fact that it is not a gossip is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent6 -> int1: the thermohydrometer is not a gossip.; sent5 -> int2: the thermohydrometer is not eastern if the fact that it is not a gossip hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the thermohydrometer is not eastern.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thermohydrometer does not gossip if the fact that the lie is not a Swanson and is a kind of a MRI is false.

If the truth about the lie is false, the thermohydrometer doesn't gossip.

that the Protestant is eastern thing that does not impugn wpm does not hold if the thermohydrometer is not eastern.

the bunkmate is not a cochineal.

sent1: if that something is a cockle but not a cochineal does not hold then it is a cochineal. sent2: if something does rehear dirge and/or is not a sustainability it rehear dirge. sent3: if the gempylid does not rough snag then it is a native and it is capacitive. sent4: there exists something such that it is a cockle. sent5: that the fact that the gastropod is not dysgenics but it does rough snag hold is incorrect if it is a kind of a pipewort. sent6: something is a cochineal. sent7: the gastropod is a pipewort. sent8: the gempylid does not rough snag if there is something such that that it is not dysgenics and it rough snag does not hold. sent9: the snag is not Bogartian if there is something such that it is native. sent10: if there exists something such that it is a cockle the fact that the idealization does not rehear dirge and/or is not a sustainability is incorrect. sent11: the idealization does rehear dirge or it is not a sustainability or both if the snag is not Bogartian. sent12: if something is a cockle then the fact that the idealization does rehear dirge hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the bunkmate is a cochineal.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bunkmate is not a cochineal. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a cockle but not a cochineal does not hold then it is a cochineal. sent2: if something does rehear dirge and/or is not a sustainability it rehear dirge. sent3: if the gempylid does not rough snag then it is a native and it is capacitive. sent4: there exists something such that it is a cockle. sent5: that the fact that the gastropod is not dysgenics but it does rough snag hold is incorrect if it is a kind of a pipewort. sent6: something is a cochineal. sent7: the gastropod is a pipewort. sent8: the gempylid does not rough snag if there is something such that that it is not dysgenics and it rough snag does not hold. sent9: the snag is not Bogartian if there is something such that it is native. sent10: if there exists something such that it is a cockle the fact that the idealization does not rehear dirge and/or is not a sustainability is incorrect. sent11: the idealization does rehear dirge or it is not a sustainability or both if the snag is not Bogartian. sent12: if something is a cockle then the fact that the idealization does rehear dirge hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is a cockle.

there exists something such that it is a cockle.

if there exists something such that it is a cockle the fact that the idealization does not rehear dirge and/or is not a sustainability is incorrect.

the ringer does not occur.

sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({N} & {FD}) sent2: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent3: ¬{EK} sent4: ({BN} & {DF}) sent5: ¬({FE} & {HI}) sent6: ({HI} & {FR}) sent7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AA} sent9: ¬({ES} & {U}) sent10: {BT} sent11: {HP} sent12: {HQ} sent13: {HN} sent14: {DC} -> {DQ} sent15: ¬({BN} & {DT}) sent16: {BL} -> {FK} sent17: {AA} -> {DD} sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: ¬({DJ} & {EM}) sent20: ¬(¬{DS} & {JG}) sent21: ({CD} & {HB}) -> ¬{FJ} sent22: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the ringer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the appendectomy occurs.; sent22 & sent2 -> int2: the Aegean occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the appendectomy and the Aegeanness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the appendectomy and the touting happens.

The touting and the appendectomy happen at the same time.

if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs.

the ringer does not occur.

sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({N} & {FD}) sent2: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent3: ¬{EK} sent4: ({BN} & {DF}) sent5: ¬({FE} & {HI}) sent6: ({HI} & {FR}) sent7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AA} sent9: ¬({ES} & {U}) sent10: {BT} sent11: {HP} sent12: {HQ} sent13: {HN} sent14: {DC} -> {DQ} sent15: ¬({BN} & {DT}) sent16: {BL} -> {FK} sent17: {AA} -> {DD} sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: ¬({DJ} & {EM}) sent20: ¬(¬{DS} & {JG}) sent21: ({CD} & {HB}) -> ¬{FJ} sent22: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the ringer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the appendectomy occurs.; sent22 & sent2 -> int2: the Aegean occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the appendectomy and the Aegeanness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the appendectomy and the touting happens.

Both the appendectomy and the touting happen.

that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true.

the ringer does not occur.

sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs.

¬{D}

sent1: ({N} & {FD}) sent2: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) sent3: ¬{EK} sent4: ({BN} & {DF}) sent5: ¬({FE} & {HI}) sent6: ({HI} & {FR}) sent7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AA} sent9: ¬({ES} & {U}) sent10: {BT} sent11: {HP} sent12: {HQ} sent13: {HN} sent14: {DC} -> {DQ} sent15: ¬({BN} & {DT}) sent16: {BL} -> {FK} sent17: {AA} -> {DD} sent18: ({A} & {B}) sent19: ¬({DJ} & {EM}) sent20: ¬(¬{DS} & {JG}) sent21: ({CD} & {HB}) -> ¬{FJ} sent22: ¬(¬{E} & {F}) -> {C}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the ringer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the impugning Java and the roughing relentlessness happens. sent2: that not the chew but the impugning ego occurs is not true. sent3: the roughing heritage does not occur. sent4: both the superiority and the crawling happens. sent5: that the conceptualization occurs and the rehearing salai happens is incorrect. sent6: both the rehearing salai and the discomycetousness occurs. sent7: if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur. sent8: the ripening birthright is triggered by the profanation. sent9: that the trihydroxiness and the poor occurs is not right. sent10: the impugning multiplication occurs. sent11: the allantoicness happens. sent12: the secondary happens. sent13: the convoying happens. sent14: the anabolicness occurs if the longitudinalness occurs. sent15: the fact that the superiority happens and the vagileness happens is not true. sent16: if the laryngopharyngealness happens then the roughing hart's-tongue occurs. sent17: that the foothold does not occur is prevented by that the ripening birthright happens. sent18: both the appendectomy and the touting happens. sent19: the fact that the ripening colon occurs and the autoimmuneness happens does not hold. sent20: the fact that the non-ascensionalness and the impugning viscose happens is incorrect. sent21: the broadcasting does not occur if the roughing oystercatcher and the rehearing transmigration occurs. sent22: if the fact that not the chewing but the impugning ego occurs is incorrect then the Aegeanness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 -> int1: the appendectomy occurs.; sent22 & sent2 -> int2: the Aegean occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the appendectomy and the Aegeanness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the appendectomy and the touting happens.

The appendectomy and the touting happen.

if the appendectomy and the Aegeanness happens the ringer does not occur.

the cocoon is a lunette.

sent1: something is a kind of a lunette if it does not light and it impugns litigation. sent2: if the emitter is not a damp or a lunette or both then the cocoon is not a lunette. sent3: the emitter is impotent if it is a Appalachian. sent4: the cocoon does rehear hawthorn. sent5: the shirtmaker is intentional if the fact that the emitter is not a damp but a lighting is not right. sent6: if that the shirtmaker is not a lunette and lights is wrong then the cocoon does damp. sent7: if the emitter is a lighting then it is intentional. sent8: the emitter is not non-intentional if that the cocoon is not a kind of a lunette but it does damp does not hold. sent9: if the shirtmaker does light then the cocoon is a lunette. sent10: if something is not a lighting and/or it is not a kind of a lunette then it is not a kind of a lighting. sent11: something that is not a lighting is a kind of a damp and/or is intentional. sent12: the shirtmaker does damp if the emitter roughs homo. sent13: that the shirtmaker does damp is true if the fact that the emitter does not rough homo but it is intentional is not right. sent14: if the shirtmaker rehears hawthorn the fact that the emitter is not lighting but it impugns litigation hold. sent15: that the emitter does not rough homo but it is not non-intentional does not hold.

{C}{c}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the cocoon is not a lunette.

¬{C}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cocoon is a lunette. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a lunette if it does not light and it impugns litigation. sent2: if the emitter is not a damp or a lunette or both then the cocoon is not a lunette. sent3: the emitter is impotent if it is a Appalachian. sent4: the cocoon does rehear hawthorn. sent5: the shirtmaker is intentional if the fact that the emitter is not a damp but a lighting is not right. sent6: if that the shirtmaker is not a lunette and lights is wrong then the cocoon does damp. sent7: if the emitter is a lighting then it is intentional. sent8: the emitter is not non-intentional if that the cocoon is not a kind of a lunette but it does damp does not hold. sent9: if the shirtmaker does light then the cocoon is a lunette. sent10: if something is not a lighting and/or it is not a kind of a lunette then it is not a kind of a lighting. sent11: something that is not a lighting is a kind of a damp and/or is intentional. sent12: the shirtmaker does damp if the emitter roughs homo. sent13: that the shirtmaker does damp is true if the fact that the emitter does not rough homo but it is intentional is not right. sent14: if the shirtmaker rehears hawthorn the fact that the emitter is not lighting but it impugns litigation hold. sent15: that the emitter does not rough homo but it is not non-intentional does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the shirtmaker does damp is true if the fact that the emitter does not rough homo but it is intentional is not right.

that the shirtmaker does damp is true if the fact that the emitter does not rough homo but it is intentional is not right.

that the emitter does not rough homo but it is not non-intentional does not hold.

either the anathematization occurs or the pentangularness occurs or both.

sent1: the roughing Cowper does not occur and the pentangularness does not occur. sent2: the roughing spokesperson prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent3: the roughing highjacker prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent4: that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness happens is incorrect if the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent5: if the roughing Cowper occurs the roughing highjacker happens and the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent6: the declaring happens if that the off-streetness occurs hold. sent7: either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both.

({C} v {D})

sent1: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: {B} -> {C} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent5: {E} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent6: {CC} -> {EE} sent7: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness occurs is incorrect.

¬({C} v {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the anathematization occurs or the pentangularness occurs or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the roughing Cowper does not occur and the pentangularness does not occur. sent2: the roughing spokesperson prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent3: the roughing highjacker prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent4: that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness happens is incorrect if the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent5: if the roughing Cowper occurs the roughing highjacker happens and the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent6: the declaring happens if that the off-streetness occurs hold. sent7: either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the anathematization happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both.

Either the roughing highjacker happens or it does.

the roughing spokesperson prevents that the anathematization does not occur.

either the anathematization occurs or the pentangularness occurs or both.

sent1: the roughing Cowper does not occur and the pentangularness does not occur. sent2: the roughing spokesperson prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent3: the roughing highjacker prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent4: that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness happens is incorrect if the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent5: if the roughing Cowper occurs the roughing highjacker happens and the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent6: the declaring happens if that the off-streetness occurs hold. sent7: either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both.

({C} v {D})

sent1: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: {B} -> {C} sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent5: {E} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent6: {CC} -> {EE} sent7: ({A} v {B})

PROVED

PROVED

that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness occurs is incorrect.

¬({C} v {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the anathematization occurs or the pentangularness occurs or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the roughing Cowper does not occur and the pentangularness does not occur. sent2: the roughing spokesperson prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent3: the roughing highjacker prevents that the anathematization does not occur. sent4: that the anathematization and/or the pentangularness happens is incorrect if the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent5: if the roughing Cowper occurs the roughing highjacker happens and the roughing spokesperson does not occur. sent6: the declaring happens if that the off-streetness occurs hold. sent7: either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the anathematization happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the roughing spokesperson occurs or the roughing highjacker happens or both.

Either the roughing highjacker happens or does not.

the roughing highjacker prevents that the anathematization does not occur.

the materialization is a Ethiopian.

sent1: the fact that the timecard is a Togaviridae is correct if that the pleurothallis does rough Pittsfield is right. sent2: the timecard is ameboid if the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae. sent3: if the timecard is a Togaviridae the Brother is chromosomal. sent4: the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae if the fact that the timecard is ameboid is right. sent5: if the fact that something is not a Togaviridae but it is chromosomal is not correct it is not ameboid. sent6: the materialization is a kind of a Ethiopian if the Brother is not non-chromosomal. sent7: the pleurothallis either roughs Pittsfield or is ameboid or both. sent8: the pleurothallis is chromosomal or it roughs Pittsfield or both.

{E}{d}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the materialization is not Ethiopian is not false.

¬{E}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the materialization is a Ethiopian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the timecard is a Togaviridae is correct if that the pleurothallis does rough Pittsfield is right. sent2: the timecard is ameboid if the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae. sent3: if the timecard is a Togaviridae the Brother is chromosomal. sent4: the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae if the fact that the timecard is ameboid is right. sent5: if the fact that something is not a Togaviridae but it is chromosomal is not correct it is not ameboid. sent6: the materialization is a kind of a Ethiopian if the Brother is not non-chromosomal. sent7: the pleurothallis either roughs Pittsfield or is ameboid or both. sent8: the pleurothallis is chromosomal or it roughs Pittsfield or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae if the fact that the timecard is ameboid is right.

the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae if the fact that the timecard is ameboid is right.

the timecard is ameboid if the pleurothallis is a Togaviridae.

the spouter does not rehear photocopier.

sent1: the fig-bird does not rehear photocopier. sent2: the telethermometer does rehear photocopier. sent3: if the spouter is a Phocidae the carryall is a heparin. sent4: if something is a collective then it is a kind of a Phocidae. sent5: if the fact that the carryall is thoughtless is not incorrect the spouter is thoughtless. sent6: the spouter is a heparin. sent7: the carryall does not rough Cowper. sent8: the spouter is a heparin but it is not a Phocidae if the carryall does rehear photocopier. sent9: the spouter is a heparin but it does not rehear photocopier if the carryall is a Phocidae. sent10: if something is amitotic it is not a spree but a Brady. sent11: something is a kind of a Phocidae or it is collective or both if it is not a spree. sent12: the tab does rehear radiation but it does not rehear photocopier. sent13: the spouter is a Phocidae. sent14: the fact that the carryall is a kind of a Phocidae is not wrong. sent15: the spouter is a Brady. sent16: the spouter is not non-amitotic if it is thoughtless. sent17: the fact that the carryall rehears tab and is not albinal hold. sent18: the carryall is thoughtless.

¬{AB}{b}

sent1: ¬{AB}{ib} sent2: {AB}{fh} sent3: {A}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: {F}{a} -> {F}{b} sent6: {AA}{b} sent7: ¬{AI}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent10: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x v {B}x) sent12: ({IA}{ec} & ¬{AB}{ec}) sent13: {A}{b} sent14: {A}{a} sent15: {D}{b} sent16: {F}{b} -> {E}{b} sent17: ({FA}{a} & ¬{CA}{a}) sent18: {F}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

the spouter rehears photocopier.

{AB}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the spouter does not rehear photocopier. ; $context$ = sent1: the fig-bird does not rehear photocopier. sent2: the telethermometer does rehear photocopier. sent3: if the spouter is a Phocidae the carryall is a heparin. sent4: if something is a collective then it is a kind of a Phocidae. sent5: if the fact that the carryall is thoughtless is not incorrect the spouter is thoughtless. sent6: the spouter is a heparin. sent7: the carryall does not rough Cowper. sent8: the spouter is a heparin but it is not a Phocidae if the carryall does rehear photocopier. sent9: the spouter is a heparin but it does not rehear photocopier if the carryall is a Phocidae. sent10: if something is amitotic it is not a spree but a Brady. sent11: something is a kind of a Phocidae or it is collective or both if it is not a spree. sent12: the tab does rehear radiation but it does not rehear photocopier. sent13: the spouter is a Phocidae. sent14: the fact that the carryall is a kind of a Phocidae is not wrong. sent15: the spouter is a Brady. sent16: the spouter is not non-amitotic if it is thoughtless. sent17: the fact that the carryall rehears tab and is not albinal hold. sent18: the carryall is thoughtless. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent14 -> int1: the spouter is a heparin and does not rehear photocopier.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the spouter is a heparin but it does not rehear photocopier if the carryall is a Phocidae.

the spouter is a heparin but it does not rehear photocopier if the carryall is a Phocidae.

the fact that the carryall is a kind of a Phocidae is not wrong.

the endameba is not trihydroxy.

sent1: The bong rehears camera. sent2: the camera rehears bong. sent3: something that is an accompanist loots. sent4: the endameba is an accompanist or trustful or both. sent5: the endameba does loot if it is trustful. sent6: if something loots the fact that it is a Priacanthidae and is not a kind of a jaded is not correct. sent7: the endameba does not puncture. sent8: if the fact that something is a Priacanthidae but it is not a jaded does not hold then it is not a Priacanthidae. sent9: if the camera rehears bong the endameba is not a puncture but trihydroxy.

¬{AB}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the collector does not rehear bong but it stretches.

(¬{A}{gg} & {EJ}{gg})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the endameba is not trihydroxy. ; $context$ = sent1: The bong rehears camera. sent2: the camera rehears bong. sent3: something that is an accompanist loots. sent4: the endameba is an accompanist or trustful or both. sent5: the endameba does loot if it is trustful. sent6: if something loots the fact that it is a Priacanthidae and is not a kind of a jaded is not correct. sent7: the endameba does not puncture. sent8: if the fact that something is a Priacanthidae but it is not a jaded does not hold then it is not a Priacanthidae. sent9: if the camera rehears bong the endameba is not a puncture but trihydroxy. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: the endameba is not a puncture but it is not non-trihydroxy.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the camera rehears bong the endameba is not a puncture but trihydroxy.

if the camera rehears bong the endameba is not a puncture but trihydroxy.

the camera rehears bong.

the post-horse is not a exabit.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a polymer that the post-horse is not inconvenient but it is a polymer is not correct. sent2: the Mozambican is not a polymer if the fact that the post-horse is not convenient and is a exabit is not wrong. sent3: if the post-horse is a kind of a polymer that does rehear inattention then the Mozambican is not inconvenient. sent4: if that something is not a polymer is right it is a exabit that is inconvenient. sent5: the fact that the Mozambican is not Pythagorean and rehears inattention is wrong if something does not rehears inattention. sent6: the allopurinol is not Pythagorean. sent7: the post-horse is not Pythagorean. sent8: the tricycle does wane and is a fusilier. sent9: if something is not a exabit the fact that the post-horse is inconvenient a exabit is not right. sent10: if the fact that something is convenient and is a polymer is not correct it does rehear inattention. sent11: that the chameleon does not intonate is not incorrect. sent12: something is a kind of an annoyance if the fact that it does not ripen mikado and it is a VDU does not hold. sent13: if the Mozambican does not rehear inattention then it is a polymer. sent14: there is something such that it rehears nanomia. sent15: the fact that the Mozambican is not a kind of an air but it is undomestic is not true if there is something such that it is not undomestic. sent16: something is a exabit if that it is not Pythagorean and it rehears inattention does not hold. sent17: there is something such that it is a exabit. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a polymer or it is Pythagorean or both. sent19: the post-horse is inconvenient. sent20: the post-horse is not adjectival. sent21: if the fact that something is non-Pythagorean and is a polymer is not correct then it is a exabit. sent22: the Mozambican is a exabit. sent23: if the fact that something is not Pythagorean and does rehear inattention does not hold then it is a polymer. sent24: the post-horse is a kind of a favorableness and is a kind of a amnesic.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ({C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent6: ¬{D}{ha} sent7: ¬{D}{a} sent8: ({L}{hl} & {HB}{hl}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {E}x sent11: ¬{CG}{ib} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AI}x & {FJ}x) -> {CF}x sent13: ¬{E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent14: (Ex): {ID}x sent15: (x): ¬{EL}x -> ¬(¬{JI}{b} & {EL}{b}) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {B}x sent17: (Ex): {B}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent19: {A}{a} sent20: ¬{BU}{a} sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent22: {B}{b} sent23: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {C}x sent24: ({DK}{a} & {BQ}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the post-horse is a exabit.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the post-horse is not a exabit. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a polymer that the post-horse is not inconvenient but it is a polymer is not correct. sent2: the Mozambican is not a polymer if the fact that the post-horse is not convenient and is a exabit is not wrong. sent3: if the post-horse is a kind of a polymer that does rehear inattention then the Mozambican is not inconvenient. sent4: if that something is not a polymer is right it is a exabit that is inconvenient. sent5: the fact that the Mozambican is not Pythagorean and rehears inattention is wrong if something does not rehears inattention. sent6: the allopurinol is not Pythagorean. sent7: the post-horse is not Pythagorean. sent8: the tricycle does wane and is a fusilier. sent9: if something is not a exabit the fact that the post-horse is inconvenient a exabit is not right. sent10: if the fact that something is convenient and is a polymer is not correct it does rehear inattention. sent11: that the chameleon does not intonate is not incorrect. sent12: something is a kind of an annoyance if the fact that it does not ripen mikado and it is a VDU does not hold. sent13: if the Mozambican does not rehear inattention then it is a polymer. sent14: there is something such that it rehears nanomia. sent15: the fact that the Mozambican is not a kind of an air but it is undomestic is not true if there is something such that it is not undomestic. sent16: something is a exabit if that it is not Pythagorean and it rehears inattention does not hold. sent17: there is something such that it is a exabit. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a polymer or it is Pythagorean or both. sent19: the post-horse is inconvenient. sent20: the post-horse is not adjectival. sent21: if the fact that something is non-Pythagorean and is a polymer is not correct then it is a exabit. sent22: the Mozambican is a exabit. sent23: if the fact that something is not Pythagorean and does rehear inattention does not hold then it is a polymer. sent24: the post-horse is a kind of a favorableness and is a kind of a amnesic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the post-horse is inconvenient.

The post horse is inconvenient.

the Mozambican is not a polymer if the fact that the post-horse is not convenient and is a exabit is not wrong.

the post-horse is not a exabit.

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a polymer that the post-horse is not inconvenient but it is a polymer is not correct. sent2: the Mozambican is not a polymer if the fact that the post-horse is not convenient and is a exabit is not wrong. sent3: if the post-horse is a kind of a polymer that does rehear inattention then the Mozambican is not inconvenient. sent4: if that something is not a polymer is right it is a exabit that is inconvenient. sent5: the fact that the Mozambican is not Pythagorean and rehears inattention is wrong if something does not rehears inattention. sent6: the allopurinol is not Pythagorean. sent7: the post-horse is not Pythagorean. sent8: the tricycle does wane and is a fusilier. sent9: if something is not a exabit the fact that the post-horse is inconvenient a exabit is not right. sent10: if the fact that something is convenient and is a polymer is not correct it does rehear inattention. sent11: that the chameleon does not intonate is not incorrect. sent12: something is a kind of an annoyance if the fact that it does not ripen mikado and it is a VDU does not hold. sent13: if the Mozambican does not rehear inattention then it is a polymer. sent14: there is something such that it rehears nanomia. sent15: the fact that the Mozambican is not a kind of an air but it is undomestic is not true if there is something such that it is not undomestic. sent16: something is a exabit if that it is not Pythagorean and it rehears inattention does not hold. sent17: there is something such that it is a exabit. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a polymer or it is Pythagorean or both. sent19: the post-horse is inconvenient. sent20: the post-horse is not adjectival. sent21: if the fact that something is non-Pythagorean and is a polymer is not correct then it is a exabit. sent22: the Mozambican is a exabit. sent23: if the fact that something is not Pythagorean and does rehear inattention does not hold then it is a polymer. sent24: the post-horse is a kind of a favorableness and is a kind of a amnesic.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ({C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent6: ¬{D}{ha} sent7: ¬{D}{a} sent8: ({L}{hl} & {HB}{hl}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {E}x sent11: ¬{CG}{ib} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AI}x & {FJ}x) -> {CF}x sent13: ¬{E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent14: (Ex): {ID}x sent15: (x): ¬{EL}x -> ¬(¬{JI}{b} & {EL}{b}) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {B}x sent17: (Ex): {B}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {D}x) sent19: {A}{a} sent20: ¬{BU}{a} sent21: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent22: {B}{b} sent23: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> {C}x sent24: ({DK}{a} & {BQ}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the post-horse is a exabit.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the post-horse is not a exabit. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a polymer that the post-horse is not inconvenient but it is a polymer is not correct. sent2: the Mozambican is not a polymer if the fact that the post-horse is not convenient and is a exabit is not wrong. sent3: if the post-horse is a kind of a polymer that does rehear inattention then the Mozambican is not inconvenient. sent4: if that something is not a polymer is right it is a exabit that is inconvenient. sent5: the fact that the Mozambican is not Pythagorean and rehears inattention is wrong if something does not rehears inattention. sent6: the allopurinol is not Pythagorean. sent7: the post-horse is not Pythagorean. sent8: the tricycle does wane and is a fusilier. sent9: if something is not a exabit the fact that the post-horse is inconvenient a exabit is not right. sent10: if the fact that something is convenient and is a polymer is not correct it does rehear inattention. sent11: that the chameleon does not intonate is not incorrect. sent12: something is a kind of an annoyance if the fact that it does not ripen mikado and it is a VDU does not hold. sent13: if the Mozambican does not rehear inattention then it is a polymer. sent14: there is something such that it rehears nanomia. sent15: the fact that the Mozambican is not a kind of an air but it is undomestic is not true if there is something such that it is not undomestic. sent16: something is a exabit if that it is not Pythagorean and it rehears inattention does not hold. sent17: there is something such that it is a exabit. sent18: there exists something such that it is not a polymer or it is Pythagorean or both. sent19: the post-horse is inconvenient. sent20: the post-horse is not adjectival. sent21: if the fact that something is non-Pythagorean and is a polymer is not correct then it is a exabit. sent22: the Mozambican is a exabit. sent23: if the fact that something is not Pythagorean and does rehear inattention does not hold then it is a polymer. sent24: the post-horse is a kind of a favorableness and is a kind of a amnesic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the post-horse is inconvenient.

The post- horse is inconvenient.

if the fact that something is not Pythagorean and does rehear inattention does not hold then it is a polymer.

the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe.

sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: {C}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{FT}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({JJ}x v ¬{CF}x) -> ¬{HO}x sent9: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: (Ex): {HB}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent14: ¬({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (Ex): {E}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{EH}x sent17: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent18: ¬({C}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent19: ¬({D}{b} v ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: ({H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

that the candlepins is a kind of non-biogeographic a drupe is false.

¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent12 -> int1: that the god is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; sent1 -> int2: the god is not a kind of a drupe if that it is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the god is not a drupe.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

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

The fact that it is not breastless is correct.

if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold.

the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe.

sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: {C}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{FT}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({JJ}x v ¬{CF}x) -> ¬{HO}x sent9: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: (Ex): {HB}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent14: ¬({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (Ex): {E}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{EH}x sent17: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent18: ¬({C}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent19: ¬({D}{b} v ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: ({H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

that the candlepins is a kind of non-biogeographic a drupe is false.

¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent12 -> int1: that the god is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; sent1 -> int2: the god is not a kind of a drupe if that it is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the god is not a drupe.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

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

It is right that it is not breastless.

something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong.

the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe.

sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict.

(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{C}x sent3: {C}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬{FT}x sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (x): ¬({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({JJ}x v ¬{CF}x) -> ¬{HO}x sent9: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: (Ex): {HB}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent14: ¬({D}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: (Ex): {E}x sent16: (Ex): ¬{EH}x sent17: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent18: ¬({C}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent19: ¬({D}{b} v ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: ({H}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

that the candlepins is a kind of non-biogeographic a drupe is false.

¬(¬{E}{b} & {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the candlepins is non-biogeographic a drupe. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a drupe if that it either is a swab or is not an attendant or both is wrong. sent2: if something is not a relict then it is not an attendant. sent3: the god is an attendant. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not pro-life is not false. sent5: something is breastless and it is a swab if it is not a kind of an attendant. sent6: if that something is a swab and/or it is a kind of an attendant is not correct it is not a drupe. sent7: the god is not biogeographic if the fact that either it is a kind of a swab or it is not a kind of an attendant or both is not right. sent8: something is not a Coregonus if the fact that it is a kind of an irredentism or it is not guilty or both is not right. sent9: if the god is not a drupe the candlepins is not a kind of an attendant but it is a kind of a drupe. sent10: something is microelectronics. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not breastless is right. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not breastless then that the god does swab and/or it is not an attendant does not hold. sent13: if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe. sent14: if the fact that the god is a kind of a drupe or it is not biogeographic or both is incorrect then it is not a kind of a swab. sent15: there is something such that it is biogeographic. sent16: there is something such that it is not a Marcionism. sent17: the god is not a drupe if the fact that it is an attendant or not biogeographic or both is incorrect. sent18: the fact that either the candlepins is an attendant or it is not a kind of a drupe or both is wrong. sent19: if that the candlepins is a drupe and/or it is not biogeographic is not true then that it swabs is not right. sent20: if the god does rough endorphin and is non-Einsteinian it is not a kind of a relict. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent12 -> int1: that the god is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; sent1 -> int2: the god is not a kind of a drupe if that it is a swab and/or it is not an attendant is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the god is not a drupe.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

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

The fact that it isn't breastless is correct.

if the god is not a kind of a drupe then the candlepins is not biogeographic but it is a kind of a drupe.

the antimacassar either is a coir or is a kind of a monolingual or both.

sent1: the dronabinol is a coir if the maigre is a kind of a coir. sent2: the antimacassar is a echinus or is glorious or both. sent3: the fact that the Tudor is a coir hold. sent4: The bey ripens maigre. sent5: the maigre ripens bey. sent6: the antimacassar is a potholder. sent7: the maigre ripens bey or it is a monolingual or both.

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

sent1: {C}{a} -> {C}{ed} sent2: ({JD}{b} v {GR}{b}) sent3: {C}{ho} sent4: {AA}{aa} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {HJ}{b} sent7: ({A}{a} v {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the dronabinol is a coir.

{C}{ed}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the antimacassar either is a coir or is a kind of a monolingual or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the dronabinol is a coir if the maigre is a kind of a coir. sent2: the antimacassar is a echinus or is glorious or both. sent3: the fact that the Tudor is a coir hold. sent4: The bey ripens maigre. sent5: the maigre ripens bey. sent6: the antimacassar is a potholder. sent7: the maigre ripens bey or it is a monolingual or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the maigre ripens bey.

the maigre ripens bey.

the fact that the Tudor is a coir hold.

that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong.

sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent3: {AB}{c} -> {D}{c} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (¬{GO}{a} & ¬{HT}{a}) sent8: (¬{HR}{c} & ¬{BF}{c}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{jd} sent11: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent12: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{c} sent14: (¬{AA}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: {A}{b} -> ¬{A}{c} sent17: {A}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: (¬{AT}{g} & ¬{B}{g}) sent19: {AB}{ff} sent20: {A}{b} -> (¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and is not a Emile is not right.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the carabao is sarcolemmal.; sent9 -> int2: if the carabao is sarcolemmal then it is a horizontal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the carabao is a horizontal.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal.

If the souther is not a fricandeau, then the carabao is sarcolemmal.

the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau.

that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong.

sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent3: {AB}{c} -> {D}{c} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (¬{GO}{a} & ¬{HT}{a}) sent8: (¬{HR}{c} & ¬{BF}{c}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{jd} sent11: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent12: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{c} sent14: (¬{AA}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: {A}{b} -> ¬{A}{c} sent17: {A}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: (¬{AT}{g} & ¬{B}{g}) sent19: {AB}{ff} sent20: {A}{b} -> (¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and is not a Emile is not right.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the carabao is sarcolemmal.; sent9 -> int2: if the carabao is sarcolemmal then it is a horizontal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the carabao is a horizontal.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal.

If the souther is not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal.

something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal.

that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong.

sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent3: {AB}{c} -> {D}{c} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent5: ¬{AA}{a} sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (¬{GO}{a} & ¬{HT}{a}) sent8: (¬{HR}{c} & ¬{BF}{c}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{jd} sent11: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent12: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{c} sent14: (¬{AA}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {D}{a} sent15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: {A}{b} -> ¬{A}{c} sent17: {A}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: (¬{AT}{g} & ¬{B}{g}) sent19: {AB}{ff} sent20: {A}{b} -> (¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the fact that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and is not a Emile is not right.

¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the trigonometrician is not horizontal and it is not a Emile is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent2: if the souther is sarcolemmal it is a kind of a horizontal. sent3: that the trigonometrician is a kind of the Emile if the trigonometrician is a fricandeau is correct. sent4: if the carabao does not stir then the souther is sarcolemmal thing that is a neuralgia. sent5: the souther is not a Sciurus. sent6: the souther is not a Sciurus and is not a kind of a fricandeau. sent7: the souther is not proportionate and it is not unpalatable. sent8: the trigonometrician is not a crawler and it does not diazotize. sent9: something is a kind of a horizontal if it is sarcolemmal. sent10: the mirage is a Sciurus. sent11: if that the carabao is not a Emile and is not a Sciurus hold then that the souther is sarcolemmal is right. sent12: the souther is not a horizontal and not a Sciurus. sent13: the fact that the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal is right. sent14: that the souther is a Emile is not wrong if the trigonometrician is not a Sciurus and is not a horizontal. sent15: if the souther is a Sciurus and is not a fricandeau the carabao is sarcolemmal. sent16: if the carabao is horizontal the trigonometrician is not a horizontal. sent17: the carabao is both not horizontal and not a Emile if the trigonometrician is a horizontal. sent18: the re is not an angered but non-sarcolemmal. sent19: the hashish is a fricandeau. sent20: the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent6 -> int1: the carabao is sarcolemmal.; sent9 -> int2: if the carabao is sarcolemmal then it is a horizontal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the carabao is a horizontal.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the souther is not a Sciurus and not a fricandeau then the carabao is sarcolemmal.

The carabao is sarcolemmal if the souther is not a fricandeau.

the trigonometrician is not a kind of a horizontal and is not a kind of a Emile if the carabao is horizontal.

the bystander is both not non-dominant and not non-prehistoric.

sent1: if that the ridley is both usual and dominant is incorrect it is not a dominant. sent2: if the fact that something is not a kind of a knock and it is not involucrate does not hold then it is usual. sent3: that the mandolin is not a kind of a knock but it is involucrate does not hold. sent4: if the mandolin is involucrate that it is usual hold. sent5: the association is both a Kennelly and prehistoric. sent6: the bystander is involucrate if the fact that it is not a dominant and it is not prehistoric is incorrect. sent7: the mandolin impugns vulture. sent8: the bystander is prehistoric. sent9: if something is involucrate then it is usual. sent10: the mandolin is prehistoric. sent11: the fact that the mandolin is not a knock and not involucrate is wrong. sent12: that the mandolin is both not involucrate and not prehistoric is false. sent13: the fact that the bystander does not knock and it is not a dominant is not right.

({A}{a} & {C}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the bystander is dominant and prehistoric is not right.

¬({A}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bystander is both not non-dominant and not non-prehistoric. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ridley is both usual and dominant is incorrect it is not a dominant. sent2: if the fact that something is not a kind of a knock and it is not involucrate does not hold then it is usual. sent3: that the mandolin is not a kind of a knock but it is involucrate does not hold. sent4: if the mandolin is involucrate that it is usual hold. sent5: the association is both a Kennelly and prehistoric. sent6: the bystander is involucrate if the fact that it is not a dominant and it is not prehistoric is incorrect. sent7: the mandolin impugns vulture. sent8: the bystander is prehistoric. sent9: if something is involucrate then it is usual. sent10: the mandolin is prehistoric. sent11: the fact that the mandolin is not a knock and not involucrate is wrong. sent12: that the mandolin is both not involucrate and not prehistoric is false. sent13: the fact that the bystander does not knock and it is not a dominant is not right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the fact that something is not a kind of a knock and it is not involucrate does not hold then it is usual.

if the fact that something is not a kind of a knock and it is not involucrate does not hold then it is usual.

the fact that the mandolin is not a knock and not involucrate is wrong.

the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine.

sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right.

({B}{b} & {A}{b})

sent1: ¬({AB}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ({HQ}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent3: {C}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{BH}{b} v ¬{AU}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: {E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: {C}{it} sent10: ({HO}{a} & {BL}{a}) sent11: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent15: ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {FQ}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent18: {C}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent20: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent21: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent22: ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent23: {A}{ff} sent24: {AA}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the barony is insurmountable and it is feminine is not true.

¬({B}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent19 -> int1: the barony is insurmountable.; sent11 & sent3 -> int2: the barony is a kind of a feminine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect.

The barony is impossible if the fact that it is not rough is incorrect.

the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold.

the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine.

sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right.

({B}{b} & {A}{b})

sent1: ¬({AB}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ({HQ}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent3: {C}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{BH}{b} v ¬{AU}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: {E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: {C}{it} sent10: ({HO}{a} & {BL}{a}) sent11: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent15: ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {FQ}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent18: {C}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent20: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent21: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent22: ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent23: {A}{ff} sent24: {AA}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the barony is insurmountable and it is feminine is not true.

¬({B}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent19 -> int1: the barony is insurmountable.; sent11 & sent3 -> int2: the barony is a kind of a feminine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect.

If the fact that it does not rough Kamet is incorrect, the barony is impossible.

if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine.

the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine.

sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right.

({B}{b} & {A}{b})

sent1: ¬({AB}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ({HQ}{a} & {DE}{a}) sent3: {C}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{BH}{b} v ¬{AU}{b}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent6: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: {E}{c} -> {D}{a} sent8: {AB}{a} sent9: {C}{it} sent10: ({HO}{a} & {BL}{a}) sent11: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: {A}{a} sent14: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent15: ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent16: {FQ}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent18: {C}{a} sent19: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent20: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent21: (Ex): ¬({I}x & {H}x) sent22: ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent23: {A}{ff} sent24: {AA}{dm}

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the barony is insurmountable and it is feminine is not true.

¬({B}{b} & {A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the barony is a kind of insurmountable a feminine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the barony roughs Kamet or it is not a kind of a gloxinia or both does not hold then that the trusty is insurmountable is not incorrect. sent2: that the trusty impugns ovolo and it is a misanthrope is not wrong. sent3: the barony is a Euler. sent4: the fact that the barony is not yogistic and/or it is not a ford does not hold if the fact that the trusty is not feminine is true. sent5: the barony is insurmountable if that either the trusty is not a gloxinia or it roughs Kamet or both is incorrect. sent6: that something is not insurmountable and is not a Euler if it is immiscible is true. sent7: the trusty is immiscible if the fact that the longan is a kind of a narcoleptic is true. sent8: the trusty roughs Kamet. sent9: the fact that the drosophila is a Euler is not wrong. sent10: the trusty is rejective and it does impugn hour. sent11: if the barony is a Euler then it is a feminine. sent12: the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect. sent13: that the trusty is feminine is not false. sent14: if something is immiscible it is a kind of a Euler. sent15: that the trusty is not a feminine and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent16: the trusty is a heating. sent17: if something that is not insurmountable is not a Euler it is not a kind of a feminine. sent18: the trusty is a Euler. sent19: the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet does not hold. sent20: the trusty is immiscible if it is not a narcoleptic and not due. sent21: there exists something such that the fact that it is a exactness and is Rousseauan is not right. sent22: that either the trusty is not a kind of a Euler or it does not rough Kamet or both is wrong. sent23: the zither is a feminine. sent24: that the diestock is a gloxinia is right. ; $proof$ =

sent12 & sent19 -> int1: the barony is insurmountable.; sent11 & sent3 -> int2: the barony is a kind of a feminine.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the barony is insurmountable if the fact that the trusty is not a gloxinia and/or it does not rough Kamet is incorrect.

The barony is impossible if the fact that it does not rough Kamet is incorrect.

the barony is a Euler.

the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing Pompadour does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the stabilization occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the stabilization but not the harassment occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens.

The stabilization happens if the cropping doesn't happen.

that the crop does not occur is correct.

the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing Pompadour does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the stabilization occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the stabilization but not the harassment occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens.

The stabilization happens if the cropping doesn't occur.

the harassment does not occur.

the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong.

sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct.

¬{D}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing Pompadour does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens. sent2: the opportuneness does not occur if the ballup does not occur. sent3: the harassment does not occur. sent4: the fact that the anisotropicness occurs and the harassment occurs is right if the opportuneness does not occur. sent5: the boricness occurs. sent6: that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur. sent7: the stabilization does not occur if the fact that the stabilization happens and the ergotropicness does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the crop does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the stabilization occurs.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the stabilization but not the harassment occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cropping does not occur then the stabilization happens.

The stabilization occurs if the cropping doesn't happen.

that the roughing Pompadour does not occur is prevented by that the stabilization happens and the harassment does not occur.

the roughing dot occurs and the heritage occurs.

sent1: that the restfulness does not occur and/or that the reverentness occurs prevents the non-low-tensionness. sent2: both the roughing Holothuridae and the disjoining happens. sent3: the fact that the systematicness happens is wrong if the fact that the fact that the systematicness happens and the roughing neuropathy occurs is not wrong is incorrect. sent4: the mayoralty happens and the TAT occurs. sent5: both the questioning and the longitudinalness occurs. sent6: if either the Frenchifying does not occur or the roughing benchmark occurs or both the heritage occurs. sent7: the non-ophthalmicness and/or the roughing Holothuridae happens. sent8: if not the Frenchifying but the heritage occurs then the villain does not occur. sent9: the precession occurs if either the non-Hebrideanness or the glimpsing or both occurs. sent10: the hircineness does not occur if that the thermionicness does not occur and the impugning andesite does not occur is not correct. sent11: both the dot-com and the dimorphism happens. sent12: the ripening photocopier happens and the roughing Heliobacter occurs. sent13: the fact that the systematicness and the roughing neuropathy happens does not hold if the fact that the hircineness does not occur is right. sent14: that the rehearing stay does not occur prevents that the nonmagneticness does not occur. sent15: if that the dominating does not occur is correct then the thalamocorticalness happens. sent16: the intermezzo occurs if the mayoralty does not occur. sent17: that the Bruneian happens and the roughing dot occurs is triggered by that the villain does not occur. sent18: that both the roughing dot and the heritage occurs is incorrect if the villain does not occur. sent19: the ripening haggle happens. sent20: the Frenchifying does not occur and/or the roughing benchmark happens. sent21: the non-systematicness causes that the roughing benchmark and the positive occurs.

({A} & {C})

sent1: (¬{EA} v {AO}) -> {IN} sent2: ({BE} & {II}) sent3: ¬({G} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent4: ({HG} & {AG}) sent5: ({FK} & {BS}) sent6: (¬{D} v {E}) -> {C} sent7: (¬{ET} v {BE}) sent8: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent9: (¬{FC} v {BQ}) -> {FI} sent10: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{H} sent11: ({BO} & {GF}) sent12: ({JE} & {BU}) sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {I}) sent14: ¬{CH} -> {DQ} sent15: ¬{AF} -> {EQ} sent16: ¬{HG} -> {HJ} sent17: ¬{B} -> ({EJ} & {A}) sent18: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent19: {U} sent20: (¬{D} v {E}) sent21: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the roughing dot occurs and the heritage happens is incorrect.

¬({A} & {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the roughing dot occurs and the heritage occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the restfulness does not occur and/or that the reverentness occurs prevents the non-low-tensionness. sent2: both the roughing Holothuridae and the disjoining happens. sent3: the fact that the systematicness happens is wrong if the fact that the fact that the systematicness happens and the roughing neuropathy occurs is not wrong is incorrect. sent4: the mayoralty happens and the TAT occurs. sent5: both the questioning and the longitudinalness occurs. sent6: if either the Frenchifying does not occur or the roughing benchmark occurs or both the heritage occurs. sent7: the non-ophthalmicness and/or the roughing Holothuridae happens. sent8: if not the Frenchifying but the heritage occurs then the villain does not occur. sent9: the precession occurs if either the non-Hebrideanness or the glimpsing or both occurs. sent10: the hircineness does not occur if that the thermionicness does not occur and the impugning andesite does not occur is not correct. sent11: both the dot-com and the dimorphism happens. sent12: the ripening photocopier happens and the roughing Heliobacter occurs. sent13: the fact that the systematicness and the roughing neuropathy happens does not hold if the fact that the hircineness does not occur is right. sent14: that the rehearing stay does not occur prevents that the nonmagneticness does not occur. sent15: if that the dominating does not occur is correct then the thalamocorticalness happens. sent16: the intermezzo occurs if the mayoralty does not occur. sent17: that the Bruneian happens and the roughing dot occurs is triggered by that the villain does not occur. sent18: that both the roughing dot and the heritage occurs is incorrect if the villain does not occur. sent19: the ripening haggle happens. sent20: the Frenchifying does not occur and/or the roughing benchmark happens. sent21: the non-systematicness causes that the roughing benchmark and the positive occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if either the Frenchifying does not occur or the roughing benchmark occurs or both the heritage occurs.

if either the Frenchifying does not occur or the roughing benchmark occurs or both the heritage occurs.

the Frenchifying does not occur and/or the roughing benchmark happens.

the fact that the earthworm roughs tall is not wrong.

sent1: something does not rough tall if the fact that it is both not a proto-oncogene and Laputan is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a proto-oncogene and it does not rough tall is wrong if it is Laputan. sent3: there is something such that it does gesticulate and it does not foster. sent4: something is not rheologic and does not foster if it does rough tall. sent5: something that is a mandolin is not a impoliteness but a ungulate. sent6: the rutabaga does not concur. sent7: something does not queue and it is not androgynous. sent8: there is something such that it does not gesticulate and it does foster. sent9: the earthworm does rough tall if there exists something such that it does not gesticulate and does not foster. sent10: there is something such that it does not foster. sent11: something does not gesticulate. sent12: if the fructification is rheologic the fact that the earthworm is not a proto-oncogene and is Laputan is not correct. sent13: the refinery does not gesticulate and does not foster. sent14: if the lodgepole does not rough Caspar it does revalue and is a mandolin. sent15: the detritus is not a blackout and it does not rough bonnet. sent16: if something is not ungulate then the fact that it is non-rheologic thing that does clobber is wrong. sent17: the lodgepole does not rough Caspar and does not impugn detritus if the rutabaga does not concur. sent18: the genip is not a ungulate if the lodgepole is not a impoliteness but it is ungulate. sent19: the refinery does not gesticulate.

{A}{a}

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that the earthworm does not rough tall hold.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the earthworm roughs tall is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not rough tall if the fact that it is both not a proto-oncogene and Laputan is not correct. sent2: the fact that something is not a proto-oncogene and it does not rough tall is wrong if it is Laputan. sent3: there is something such that it does gesticulate and it does not foster. sent4: something is not rheologic and does not foster if it does rough tall. sent5: something that is a mandolin is not a impoliteness but a ungulate. sent6: the rutabaga does not concur. sent7: something does not queue and it is not androgynous. sent8: there is something such that it does not gesticulate and it does foster. sent9: the earthworm does rough tall if there exists something such that it does not gesticulate and does not foster. sent10: there is something such that it does not foster. sent11: something does not gesticulate. sent12: if the fructification is rheologic the fact that the earthworm is not a proto-oncogene and is Laputan is not correct. sent13: the refinery does not gesticulate and does not foster. sent14: if the lodgepole does not rough Caspar it does revalue and is a mandolin. sent15: the detritus is not a blackout and it does not rough bonnet. sent16: if something is not ungulate then the fact that it is non-rheologic thing that does clobber is wrong. sent17: the lodgepole does not rough Caspar and does not impugn detritus if the rutabaga does not concur. sent18: the genip is not a ungulate if the lodgepole is not a impoliteness but it is ungulate. sent19: the refinery does not gesticulate. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: something does not gesticulate and it does not foster.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the refinery does not gesticulate and does not foster.

the refinery does not gesticulate and does not foster.

the earthworm does rough tall if there exists something such that it does not gesticulate and does not foster.

the townee is not a Okeechobee.

sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the townee is not a Okeechobee. ; $context$ = sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Mauritanian is unconscious and/or it is not a hollygrape.; int1 & sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a belay.

It is a belay.

if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape.

the townee is not a Okeechobee.

sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the townee is not a Okeechobee. ; $context$ = sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Mauritanian is unconscious and/or it is not a hollygrape.; int1 & sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a belay.

There is a belay.

the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious.

the townee is not a Okeechobee.

sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee.

¬{D}{b}

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the townee is not a Okeechobee. ; $context$ = sent1: the townee is not a kind of a Okeechobee if the Mauritanian is an unconscious. sent2: there is something such that it is a belay. sent3: the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a belay then the Mauritanian is an unconscious and/or is not a kind of a hollygrape. sent5: something is a Okeechobee. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the Mauritanian is unconscious and/or it is not a hollygrape.; int1 & sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a belay.

There is something that is a belay.

the fact that if the Mauritanian is not a kind of a hollygrape the townee is not a Okeechobee is correct.

the fact that the galleon is a kind of an eligibility is not false.

sent1: if the tungsten is not a kind of an eligibility the fact that the sporophore is a Yellowstone and sclerotic does not hold. sent2: the sporophore is sclerotic if the fact that the bluenose is trophic hold. sent3: the sporophore is sclerotic if that the bluenose is not trophic but it is a thirst is false. sent4: the fact that the tungsten is not a thirst but it is sclerotic does not hold. sent5: the tungsten is a kind of a Yellowstone and it is sclerotic. sent6: if the tungsten is both a Yellowstone and sclerotic then that the sporophore is not sclerotic is right. sent7: that something is not an eligibility if the fact that it is sclerotic and is not a Yellowstone is wrong is correct.

{A}{a}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the galleon is not a kind of an eligibility.

¬{A}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the galleon is a kind of an eligibility is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tungsten is not a kind of an eligibility the fact that the sporophore is a Yellowstone and sclerotic does not hold. sent2: the sporophore is sclerotic if the fact that the bluenose is trophic hold. sent3: the sporophore is sclerotic if that the bluenose is not trophic but it is a thirst is false. sent4: the fact that the tungsten is not a thirst but it is sclerotic does not hold. sent5: the tungsten is a kind of a Yellowstone and it is sclerotic. sent6: if the tungsten is both a Yellowstone and sclerotic then that the sporophore is not sclerotic is right. sent7: that something is not an eligibility if the fact that it is sclerotic and is not a Yellowstone is wrong is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the tungsten is both a Yellowstone and sclerotic then that the sporophore is not sclerotic is right.

if the tungsten is both a Yellowstone and sclerotic then that the sporophore is not sclerotic is right.

the tungsten is a kind of a Yellowstone and it is sclerotic.

the roughing Reaumur occurs.

sent1: if the chipping does not occur and the Muhammadanness happens then the cannonade does not occur. sent2: that the easing does not occur and the mandibulateness occurs causes that the roughing Reaumur does not occur. sent3: the vehicularness does not occur. sent4: the flight does not occur. sent5: the fact that the tack happens and the axillariness occurs if the articulatoriness does not occur hold. sent6: that the tack happens causes that the roughing Reaumur occurs and the beautifulness does not occur. sent7: that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens. sent8: the amygdalineness occurs. sent9: the reviving does not occur but the proverbialness occurs. sent10: the unpalatableness happens. sent11: the articulatoriness does not occur if that the business does not occur but the interchanging happens does not hold. sent12: the beautifulness occurs.

{B}

sent1: (¬{IG} & {DQ}) -> ¬{JA} sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{ET} sent4: ¬{BL} sent5: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent6: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent7: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: {FT} sent9: (¬{EC} & {EI}) sent10: {DS} sent11: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent12: {A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing Reaumur happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the roughing Reaumur occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chipping does not occur and the Muhammadanness happens then the cannonade does not occur. sent2: that the easing does not occur and the mandibulateness occurs causes that the roughing Reaumur does not occur. sent3: the vehicularness does not occur. sent4: the flight does not occur. sent5: the fact that the tack happens and the axillariness occurs if the articulatoriness does not occur hold. sent6: that the tack happens causes that the roughing Reaumur occurs and the beautifulness does not occur. sent7: that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens. sent8: the amygdalineness occurs. sent9: the reviving does not occur but the proverbialness occurs. sent10: the unpalatableness happens. sent11: the articulatoriness does not occur if that the business does not occur but the interchanging happens does not hold. sent12: the beautifulness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent12 -> int1: not the easing but the mandibulateness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens.

The easing doesn't happen but the beautifulness does.

the beautifulness occurs.

the roughing Reaumur occurs.

sent1: if the chipping does not occur and the Muhammadanness happens then the cannonade does not occur. sent2: that the easing does not occur and the mandibulateness occurs causes that the roughing Reaumur does not occur. sent3: the vehicularness does not occur. sent4: the flight does not occur. sent5: the fact that the tack happens and the axillariness occurs if the articulatoriness does not occur hold. sent6: that the tack happens causes that the roughing Reaumur occurs and the beautifulness does not occur. sent7: that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens. sent8: the amygdalineness occurs. sent9: the reviving does not occur but the proverbialness occurs. sent10: the unpalatableness happens. sent11: the articulatoriness does not occur if that the business does not occur but the interchanging happens does not hold. sent12: the beautifulness occurs.

{B}

sent1: (¬{IG} & {DQ}) -> ¬{JA} sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{ET} sent4: ¬{BL} sent5: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent6: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent7: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: {FT} sent9: (¬{EC} & {EI}) sent10: {DS} sent11: ¬(¬{G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent12: {A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing Reaumur happens.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the roughing Reaumur occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chipping does not occur and the Muhammadanness happens then the cannonade does not occur. sent2: that the easing does not occur and the mandibulateness occurs causes that the roughing Reaumur does not occur. sent3: the vehicularness does not occur. sent4: the flight does not occur. sent5: the fact that the tack happens and the axillariness occurs if the articulatoriness does not occur hold. sent6: that the tack happens causes that the roughing Reaumur occurs and the beautifulness does not occur. sent7: that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens. sent8: the amygdalineness occurs. sent9: the reviving does not occur but the proverbialness occurs. sent10: the unpalatableness happens. sent11: the articulatoriness does not occur if that the business does not occur but the interchanging happens does not hold. sent12: the beautifulness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent12 -> int1: not the easing but the mandibulateness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the easing does not occur but the mandibulateness happens is triggered by that the beautifulness happens.

The easing doesn't happen, but the beautifulness does.

that the easing does not occur and the mandibulateness occurs causes that the roughing Reaumur does not occur.

the indissolubleness occurs.

sent1: the showering happens. sent2: if the proconsulship occurs or the thickness occurs or both then the indissolubleness does not occur. sent3: if the thickness does not occur the indissolubleness happens and the proconsulship does not occur. sent4: the thickness occurs. sent5: the thickness does not occur and/or the indissolubleness happens if the fact that the misfeasance does not occur is correct.

{C}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the roughing ablution does not occur.

¬{JC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the indissolubleness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the showering happens. sent2: if the proconsulship occurs or the thickness occurs or both then the indissolubleness does not occur. sent3: if the thickness does not occur the indissolubleness happens and the proconsulship does not occur. sent4: the thickness occurs. sent5: the thickness does not occur and/or the indissolubleness happens if the fact that the misfeasance does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: the proconsulship happens or the thickness happens or both.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the thickness occurs.

the thickness occurs.

if the proconsulship occurs or the thickness occurs or both then the indissolubleness does not occur.

the hand does not occur.

sent1: the incompatibleness does not occur. sent2: the handing happens if the rehearing gnome occurs. sent3: if the incompatibleness does not occur then the calyculateness occurs. sent4: the calyculateness happens. sent5: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hand does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the incompatibleness does not occur. sent2: the handing happens if the rehearing gnome occurs. sent3: if the incompatibleness does not occur then the calyculateness occurs. sent4: the calyculateness happens. sent5: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens.; int1 -> int2: the rehearing gnome occurs.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true.

If the incompatibleness doesn't happen, the rehearing and calyculateness will happen.

the incompatibleness does not occur.

the hand does not occur.

sent1: the incompatibleness does not occur. sent2: the handing happens if the rehearing gnome occurs. sent3: if the incompatibleness does not occur then the calyculateness occurs. sent4: the calyculateness happens. sent5: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true.

¬{B}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the hand does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the incompatibleness does not occur. sent2: the handing happens if the rehearing gnome occurs. sent3: if the incompatibleness does not occur then the calyculateness occurs. sent4: the calyculateness happens. sent5: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent1 -> int1: the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens.; int1 -> int2: the rehearing gnome occurs.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rehearing gnome and the calyculateness happens if the fact that the incompatibleness does not occur is true.

If the incompatibleness does not happen, the rehearing and calyculateness will happen.

the handing happens if the rehearing gnome occurs.

the technophobe is a map but it does not impugn menthol.

sent1: the cymbalist is not a vengeance. sent2: that the technophobe does not impugn menthol is correct. sent3: the technophobe is a kind of a map but it does not impugn menthol if the Kansas does not impugn menthol. sent4: the fragmentation does not impugn menthol. sent5: the Kansas does impugn collaborator but it is not a southland. sent6: the Kansas does not impugn menthol and it is not a vengeance. sent7: if the technophobe is not a vengeance then the Kansas is a map.

({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{ba} sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent4: ¬{A}{eo} sent5: ({BA}{a} & ¬{AJ}{a}) sent6: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the technophobe is a map but it does not impugn menthol. ; $context$ = sent1: the cymbalist is not a vengeance. sent2: that the technophobe does not impugn menthol is correct. sent3: the technophobe is a kind of a map but it does not impugn menthol if the Kansas does not impugn menthol. sent4: the fragmentation does not impugn menthol. sent5: the Kansas does impugn collaborator but it is not a southland. sent6: the Kansas does not impugn menthol and it is not a vengeance. sent7: if the technophobe is not a vengeance then the Kansas is a map. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the Kansas does not impugn menthol.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Kansas does not impugn menthol and it is not a vengeance.

the Kansas does not impugn menthol and it is not a vengeance.

the technophobe is a kind of a map but it does not impugn menthol if the Kansas does not impugn menthol.

the working is majors.

sent1: the redeemer is a majors if the fact that the Hamlet does not vaticinate and is not a kind of a majors is not right. sent2: if something does not vaticinate it is not argumentative. sent3: that the working is majors is true if that it does impugn endorphin and does not rehear finish is not correct. sent4: that the working impugns endorphin and it does rehear finish is not true. sent5: if something is not argumentative then that it does impugn endorphin and does not rehear finish does not hold. sent6: if something is not unargumentative the fact that it does rehear finish and does not vaticinate does not hold. sent7: the fact that something impugns endorphin and it rehears finish is not true if it is not argumentative. sent8: if that the fluorapatite does major hold the working is not major. sent9: the fact that the working does impugn endorphin and does rehear finish is incorrect if it is not argumentative. sent10: if the redeemer does major then the fluorapatite does major. sent11: if that something does rehear finish and does not vaticinate is not true then it does not rehear finish. sent12: the working majors if it does rehear finish.

{E}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the working is not a majors.

¬{E}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the working is majors. ; $context$ = sent1: the redeemer is a majors if the fact that the Hamlet does not vaticinate and is not a kind of a majors is not right. sent2: if something does not vaticinate it is not argumentative. sent3: that the working is majors is true if that it does impugn endorphin and does not rehear finish is not correct. sent4: that the working impugns endorphin and it does rehear finish is not true. sent5: if something is not argumentative then that it does impugn endorphin and does not rehear finish does not hold. sent6: if something is not unargumentative the fact that it does rehear finish and does not vaticinate does not hold. sent7: the fact that something impugns endorphin and it rehears finish is not true if it is not argumentative. sent8: if that the fluorapatite does major hold the working is not major. sent9: the fact that the working does impugn endorphin and does rehear finish is incorrect if it is not argumentative. sent10: if the redeemer does major then the fluorapatite does major. sent11: if that something does rehear finish and does not vaticinate is not true then it does not rehear finish. sent12: the working majors if it does rehear finish. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does not vaticinate it is not argumentative.

if something does not vaticinate it is not argumentative.

if something is not argumentative then that it does impugn endorphin and does not rehear finish does not hold.

the deterrence happens.

sent1: the rehearing Penn occurs. sent2: that the deterrence happens is triggered by that the thunderhead happens. sent3: the larvalness happens.

{C}

sent1: {A} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: {HB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the deterrence happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the rehearing Penn occurs. sent2: that the deterrence happens is triggered by that the thunderhead happens. sent3: the larvalness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rehearing Penn occurs.

the rehearing Penn occurs.

that the deterrence happens is triggered by that the thunderhead happens.

the greyback does not doubt or it is a kind of a MRI or both.

sent1: the taurine does not allow if the hemoglobin is not a beguine. sent2: the Flagstaff is not a churchyard if something that is not a kind of a retrospective is a reviewer. sent3: the greyback is not a Tobagonian if the surrogate is a Callorhinus. sent4: if something is a kind of non-Austronesian thing that rehears coronet it is not a beguine. sent5: the surrogate does not allow if there is something such that it is not a MRI. sent6: if that the follower does rehear leptosporangium hold it is not retrospective and it is a reviewer. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not allow the surrogate either is a Callorhinus or does not allow or both. sent8: the greyback is not a MRI. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a doubt. sent11: if the surrogate is a MRI the fact that the greyback is not a doubt and/or it is a MRI is wrong. sent12: the hemoglobin is not a Austronesian and does rehear coronet if something is not a kind of a churchyard. sent13: something is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both if it is not a kind of a Tobagonian. sent14: the follower rehears leptosporangium and is connate. sent15: the surrogate does not allow. sent16: the surrogate is not a doubt if there is something such that that it does not allow is true. sent17: the surrogate is a MRI that does not allow if there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the greyback is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the greyback does not doubt or it is a kind of a MRI or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the taurine does not allow if the hemoglobin is not a beguine. sent2: the Flagstaff is not a churchyard if something that is not a kind of a retrospective is a reviewer. sent3: the greyback is not a Tobagonian if the surrogate is a Callorhinus. sent4: if something is a kind of non-Austronesian thing that rehears coronet it is not a beguine. sent5: the surrogate does not allow if there is something such that it is not a MRI. sent6: if that the follower does rehear leptosporangium hold it is not retrospective and it is a reviewer. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not allow the surrogate either is a Callorhinus or does not allow or both. sent8: the greyback is not a MRI. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a doubt. sent11: if the surrogate is a MRI the fact that the greyback is not a doubt and/or it is a MRI is wrong. sent12: the hemoglobin is not a Austronesian and does rehear coronet if something is not a kind of a churchyard. sent13: something is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both if it is not a kind of a Tobagonian. sent14: the follower rehears leptosporangium and is connate. sent15: the surrogate does not allow. sent16: the surrogate is not a doubt if there is something such that that it does not allow is true. sent17: the surrogate is a MRI that does not allow if there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the surrogate is a kind of a MRI and does not allow.; int1 -> int2: the surrogate is a kind of a MRI.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian.

There is something that is not a Tobagonian.

the surrogate is a MRI that does not allow if there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian.

the greyback does not doubt or it is a kind of a MRI or both.

sent1: the taurine does not allow if the hemoglobin is not a beguine. sent2: the Flagstaff is not a churchyard if something that is not a kind of a retrospective is a reviewer. sent3: the greyback is not a Tobagonian if the surrogate is a Callorhinus. sent4: if something is a kind of non-Austronesian thing that rehears coronet it is not a beguine. sent5: the surrogate does not allow if there is something such that it is not a MRI. sent6: if that the follower does rehear leptosporangium hold it is not retrospective and it is a reviewer. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not allow the surrogate either is a Callorhinus or does not allow or both. sent8: the greyback is not a MRI. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a doubt. sent11: if the surrogate is a MRI the fact that the greyback is not a doubt and/or it is a MRI is wrong. sent12: the hemoglobin is not a Austronesian and does rehear coronet if something is not a kind of a churchyard. sent13: something is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both if it is not a kind of a Tobagonian. sent14: the follower rehears leptosporangium and is connate. sent15: the surrogate does not allow. sent16: the surrogate is not a doubt if there is something such that that it does not allow is true. sent17: the surrogate is a MRI that does not allow if there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the greyback is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the greyback does not doubt or it is a kind of a MRI or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the taurine does not allow if the hemoglobin is not a beguine. sent2: the Flagstaff is not a churchyard if something that is not a kind of a retrospective is a reviewer. sent3: the greyback is not a Tobagonian if the surrogate is a Callorhinus. sent4: if something is a kind of non-Austronesian thing that rehears coronet it is not a beguine. sent5: the surrogate does not allow if there is something such that it is not a MRI. sent6: if that the follower does rehear leptosporangium hold it is not retrospective and it is a reviewer. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not allow the surrogate either is a Callorhinus or does not allow or both. sent8: the greyback is not a MRI. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. sent10: there exists something such that it is not a doubt. sent11: if the surrogate is a MRI the fact that the greyback is not a doubt and/or it is a MRI is wrong. sent12: the hemoglobin is not a Austronesian and does rehear coronet if something is not a kind of a churchyard. sent13: something is not a doubt or it is a MRI or both if it is not a kind of a Tobagonian. sent14: the follower rehears leptosporangium and is connate. sent15: the surrogate does not allow. sent16: the surrogate is not a doubt if there is something such that that it does not allow is true. sent17: the surrogate is a MRI that does not allow if there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent17 -> int1: the surrogate is a kind of a MRI and does not allow.; int1 -> int2: the surrogate is a kind of a MRI.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not a Tobagonian.

There is something that isn't a Tobagonian.

if the surrogate is a MRI the fact that the greyback is not a doubt and/or it is a MRI is wrong.

both the steeping fringe and the bitting Cornus happens.

sent1: the bitting Cornus occurs. sent2: the nonproprietariness does not occur. sent3: that the steeping fringe does not occur is prevented by that the nonproprietariness and the ichorousness occurs. sent4: the non-nonproprietariness and the ichorousness happens.

({B} & {A})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the steeping fringe and the bitting Cornus happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the bitting Cornus occurs. sent2: the nonproprietariness does not occur. sent3: that the steeping fringe does not occur is prevented by that the nonproprietariness and the ichorousness occurs. sent4: the non-nonproprietariness and the ichorousness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the bitting Cornus occurs.

the bitting Cornus occurs.

the non-nonproprietariness and the ichorousness happens.

that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({N}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent3: {AD}{ab} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) -> {R}{h} sent5: (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {R}x -> (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent9: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: (x): {P}x -> ¬({N}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) sent14: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{K}x sent15: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{M}{g} sent17: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) sent18: {B}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: {C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent20: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{BO}{c}) sent21: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent22: {C}{c} sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent24: {AB}{a} -> {IO}{a} sent25: (¬{M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{M}{f} sent26: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) -> {P}{i}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Moron is a kind of a Mailer that lines.

({BL}{c} & {BO}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent23 -> int1: the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the edmontosaurus is Creole.; sent19 & sent22 -> int3: the edmontosaurus freezes battering.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.

The edmontosaurus is a dumbbell if the electrolyte is not a kind of ablative.

the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform.

that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({N}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent3: {AD}{ab} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) -> {R}{h} sent5: (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {R}x -> (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent9: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: (x): {P}x -> ¬({N}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) sent14: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{K}x sent15: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{M}{g} sent17: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) sent18: {B}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: {C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent20: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{BO}{c}) sent21: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent22: {C}{c} sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent24: {AB}{a} -> {IO}{a} sent25: (¬{M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{M}{f} sent26: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) -> {P}{i}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Moron is a kind of a Mailer that lines.

({BL}{c} & {BO}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent23 -> int1: the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the edmontosaurus is Creole.; sent19 & sent22 -> int3: the edmontosaurus freezes battering.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.

The edmontosaurus is a dumbbell if the electrolyte is not a type of ablative.

the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell.

that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({N}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent3: {AD}{ab} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) -> {R}{h} sent5: (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {R}x -> (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent9: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: (x): {P}x -> ¬({N}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) sent14: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{K}x sent15: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{M}{g} sent17: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) sent18: {B}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: {C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent20: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{BO}{c}) sent21: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent22: {C}{c} sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent24: {AB}{a} -> {IO}{a} sent25: (¬{M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{M}{f} sent26: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) -> {P}{i}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Moron is a kind of a Mailer that lines.

({BL}{c} & {BO}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent23 -> int1: the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the edmontosaurus is Creole.; sent19 & sent22 -> int3: the edmontosaurus freezes battering.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.

The edmontosaurus is a dumbbell if the electrolyte is not ablative.

the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering.

that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold.

sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora.

¬({A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({N}x & ¬{P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent3: {AD}{ab} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) -> {R}{h} sent5: (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): {R}x -> (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) sent7: ¬{H}{c} -> ({G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent8: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬({K}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent9: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent12: (x): {P}x -> ¬({N}{g} & ¬{P}{g}) sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{T}x & {S}x) sent14: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{K}x sent15: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{M}{g} sent17: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) sent18: {B}{b} -> {A}{b} sent19: {C}{c} -> {C}{b} sent20: ¬({D}{c} & ¬{BO}{c}) sent21: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent22: {C}{c} sent23: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent24: {AB}{a} -> {IO}{a} sent25: (¬{M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{M}{f} sent26: ¬(¬{U}{i} & {AA}{i}) -> {P}{i}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the Moron is a kind of a Mailer that lines.

({BL}{c} & {BO}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that does freeze battering is not wrong does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the edmontosaurus is Creole thing that freezes battering does not hold if the electrolyte is not a dumbbell. sent2: if that something is pietistic but it is not a Gongora does not hold it is not pietistic. sent3: The battering freezes Moron. sent4: the lodestar is a kind of a Pole if there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and it is high-rise is false. sent5: the electrolyte is a dumbbell if the edmontosaurus is not a Creole but it is a ablative. sent6: something does not steep malaise and does not overwhelm if it is a Pole. sent7: if the Moron is not a Valerianaceae the electrolyte is phonological and it does steep hyponymy. sent8: if the chalk is not a kind of a pip then the fact that the cingulum is a kind of a laugh but it does not keratinize severance is not correct. sent9: something is aware and is not stored-program if it does steep hyponymy. sent10: the electrolyte is a Creole. sent11: if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell. sent12: the fact that the kneeler is pietistic but it is not a kind of a Gongora does not hold if something is a kind of a Gongora. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it does not steep prion and is high-rise is incorrect. sent14: if that something is a laugh and does not keratinize severance is not right then it does not laugh. sent15: something is not a dumbbell if it is aware thing that is not stored-program. sent16: the kneeler is not a pip if something that does not steep malaise does not overwhelm. sent17: the fact that the run is not a bimetallist but it is a ablative does not hold. sent18: the edmontosaurus is a Creole if it is a dumbbell. sent19: the edmontosaurus freezes battering if the Moron freezes battering. sent20: the fact that the Moron is stored-program but it is not a line is false. sent21: the affinity is a Mylodontidae that does golf if the cingulum does not laugh. sent22: the Moron freezes battering. sent23: the electrolyte is non-ablative and it is not papilliform. sent24: if the electrolyte is papilliform then it is lexical. sent25: if the fact that the kneeler is not a pip and not pietistic hold the chalk is not a pip. sent26: if that the run is not a bimetallist and is ablative is not correct then it is a kind of a Gongora. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent23 -> int1: the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the edmontosaurus is Creole.; sent19 & sent22 -> int3: the edmontosaurus freezes battering.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the electrolyte is not a kind of a ablative and it is not papilliform the edmontosaurus is a dumbbell.

The edmontosaurus is a dumbbell, if the electrolyte is not a kind of ablative.

the Moron freezes battering.

the keratinizing airmailer does not occur.

sent1: the desirableness happens. sent2: if the politeness does not occur the fact that the keratinizing airmailer does not occur and the desirableness does not occur is not correct. sent3: that the fixation happens and the politeness happens is brought about by that the full-termness does not occur. sent4: that the keratinizing airmailer does not occur is caused by that the politeness occurs and the desirableness happens.

¬{C}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fixation happens and the limacineness happens.

({DE} & {IE})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the keratinizing airmailer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the desirableness happens. sent2: if the politeness does not occur the fact that the keratinizing airmailer does not occur and the desirableness does not occur is not correct. sent3: that the fixation happens and the politeness happens is brought about by that the full-termness does not occur. sent4: that the keratinizing airmailer does not occur is caused by that the politeness occurs and the desirableness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fixation happens and the politeness happens is brought about by that the full-termness does not occur.

that the fixation happens and the politeness happens is brought about by that the full-termness does not occur.

if the politeness does not occur the fact that the keratinizing airmailer does not occur and the desirableness does not occur is not correct.

the atheistness does not occur.

sent1: if the pressorness does not occur the bitting questionnaire occurs. sent2: that the pressorness does not occur and the precondition does not occur causes that the bitting questionnaire does not occur. sent3: if the pressorness does not occur then the versification and the bitting questionnaire happens. sent4: if that the bitting questionnaire does not occur is correct then the versification occurs and the Job occurs. sent5: that the pressorness but not the allotropy happens is caused by that the keratinizing Amerindian happens. sent6: the fact that the fact that both the non-atheistness and the versification happens is not wrong does not hold if the bitting questionnaire does not occur. sent7: if both the pressorness and the precondition occurs then that the bitting questionnaire does not occur is true. sent8: that the cornhusking happens is prevented by that the steeping creaminess but not the shedding occurs. sent9: the agrypnoticness occurs and the twigging happens. sent10: that the twigging does not occur triggers that the atheist occurs and the agrypnoticness occurs. sent11: that the steeping Nero does not occur or that the deflection occurs or both is triggered by the influentialness. sent12: the bitting questionnaire happens. sent13: if the steeping Nero does not occur or the deflection occurs or both then the deflection happens. sent14: that the non-bauxiticness and the sensibleness occurs is false if the deflection happens. sent15: the keratinizing Amerindian and the ball happens if the cornhusking does not occur. sent16: the Job occurs if the twigging happens. sent17: that the atheistness occurs is prevented by that both the Job and the versification occurs. sent18: that the agrypnoticness occurs prevents the non-atypicalness. sent19: if that not the bauxiticness but the sensibleness happens is incorrect then the preconditioning occurs. sent20: the agrypnoticness occurs. sent21: if the sensibleness does not occur then that the pressorness does not occur and the preconditioning does not occur hold.

¬{E}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the atypicalness happens.

{DM}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the atheistness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pressorness does not occur the bitting questionnaire occurs. sent2: that the pressorness does not occur and the precondition does not occur causes that the bitting questionnaire does not occur. sent3: if the pressorness does not occur then the versification and the bitting questionnaire happens. sent4: if that the bitting questionnaire does not occur is correct then the versification occurs and the Job occurs. sent5: that the pressorness but not the allotropy happens is caused by that the keratinizing Amerindian happens. sent6: the fact that the fact that both the non-atheistness and the versification happens is not wrong does not hold if the bitting questionnaire does not occur. sent7: if both the pressorness and the precondition occurs then that the bitting questionnaire does not occur is true. sent8: that the cornhusking happens is prevented by that the steeping creaminess but not the shedding occurs. sent9: the agrypnoticness occurs and the twigging happens. sent10: that the twigging does not occur triggers that the atheist occurs and the agrypnoticness occurs. sent11: that the steeping Nero does not occur or that the deflection occurs or both is triggered by the influentialness. sent12: the bitting questionnaire happens. sent13: if the steeping Nero does not occur or the deflection occurs or both then the deflection happens. sent14: that the non-bauxiticness and the sensibleness occurs is false if the deflection happens. sent15: the keratinizing Amerindian and the ball happens if the cornhusking does not occur. sent16: the Job occurs if the twigging happens. sent17: that the atheistness occurs is prevented by that both the Job and the versification occurs. sent18: that the agrypnoticness occurs prevents the non-atypicalness. sent19: if that not the bauxiticness but the sensibleness happens is incorrect then the preconditioning occurs. sent20: the agrypnoticness occurs. sent21: if the sensibleness does not occur then that the pressorness does not occur and the preconditioning does not occur hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the agrypnoticness occurs and the twigging happens.

the agrypnoticness occurs and the twigging happens.

the Job occurs if the twigging happens.

the meclizine is a censer.

sent1: the fact that the meclizine is a censer and it does steep vara is not correct if it is not a protrusion. sent2: if something is not climactic it is a orthogonality and is a slur. sent3: the supporter is a protrusion but it does not steep surpliced if the limb is not a orthogonality. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a censer and is a protrusion. sent5: the limb is not a protrusion. sent6: if the HIV is not a kind of a blaxploitation then the relish is a blaxploitation. sent7: if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong. sent8: something is not climactic if it is not a kind of a disaccharidase and it is not baccate. sent9: the kaoliang freezes strife. sent10: the fact that the relish is not a disaccharidase and it is not baccate is not incorrect if the fireplug does rick. sent11: if the chaetodon does not steep deltoid that that the nigger is a olecranon and/or a cerium is true is false. sent12: the meclizine is a kind of a protrusion and it is a kind of a censer if the limb does not steep surpliced. sent13: the meclizine is not a kind of a censer if something does not steep vara. sent14: the meclizine is not a censer if there exists something such that that it steeps vara and is a vocal is not right. sent15: if something that consults is not billiard then the chaetodon does not steep deltoid. sent16: there exists something such that it does steep vara and it is a vocal. sent17: something consults but it is not billiard if it freezes strife. sent18: the fireplug ricks and does freeze jolly. sent19: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of vocal thing that is a kind of a censer is false then the limb is not a kind of a protrusion. sent20: the fact that the HIV is not a blaxploitation is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a olecranon and/or it is a cerium is wrong. sent21: the meclizine does not freeze TRM. sent22: if something that is a protrusion does not steep surpliced it is not a censer.

{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the meclizine is a kind of a censer.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the meclizine is a censer. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the meclizine is a censer and it does steep vara is not correct if it is not a protrusion. sent2: if something is not climactic it is a orthogonality and is a slur. sent3: the supporter is a protrusion but it does not steep surpliced if the limb is not a orthogonality. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a censer and is a protrusion. sent5: the limb is not a protrusion. sent6: if the HIV is not a kind of a blaxploitation then the relish is a blaxploitation. sent7: if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong. sent8: something is not climactic if it is not a kind of a disaccharidase and it is not baccate. sent9: the kaoliang freezes strife. sent10: the fact that the relish is not a disaccharidase and it is not baccate is not incorrect if the fireplug does rick. sent11: if the chaetodon does not steep deltoid that that the nigger is a olecranon and/or a cerium is true is false. sent12: the meclizine is a kind of a protrusion and it is a kind of a censer if the limb does not steep surpliced. sent13: the meclizine is not a kind of a censer if something does not steep vara. sent14: the meclizine is not a censer if there exists something such that that it steeps vara and is a vocal is not right. sent15: if something that consults is not billiard then the chaetodon does not steep deltoid. sent16: there exists something such that it does steep vara and it is a vocal. sent17: something consults but it is not billiard if it freezes strife. sent18: the fireplug ricks and does freeze jolly. sent19: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of vocal thing that is a kind of a censer is false then the limb is not a kind of a protrusion. sent20: the fact that the HIV is not a blaxploitation is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a olecranon and/or it is a cerium is wrong. sent21: the meclizine does not freeze TRM. sent22: if something that is a protrusion does not steep surpliced it is not a censer. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the limb steeps vara and is a vocal is not right.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is incorrect.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong.

The limb does steep vara, but it is not a vocal.

the limb is not a protrusion.

the meclizine is a censer.

sent1: the fact that the meclizine is a censer and it does steep vara is not correct if it is not a protrusion. sent2: if something is not climactic it is a orthogonality and is a slur. sent3: the supporter is a protrusion but it does not steep surpliced if the limb is not a orthogonality. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a censer and is a protrusion. sent5: the limb is not a protrusion. sent6: if the HIV is not a kind of a blaxploitation then the relish is a blaxploitation. sent7: if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong. sent8: something is not climactic if it is not a kind of a disaccharidase and it is not baccate. sent9: the kaoliang freezes strife. sent10: the fact that the relish is not a disaccharidase and it is not baccate is not incorrect if the fireplug does rick. sent11: if the chaetodon does not steep deltoid that that the nigger is a olecranon and/or a cerium is true is false. sent12: the meclizine is a kind of a protrusion and it is a kind of a censer if the limb does not steep surpliced. sent13: the meclizine is not a kind of a censer if something does not steep vara. sent14: the meclizine is not a censer if there exists something such that that it steeps vara and is a vocal is not right. sent15: if something that consults is not billiard then the chaetodon does not steep deltoid. sent16: there exists something such that it does steep vara and it is a vocal. sent17: something consults but it is not billiard if it freezes strife. sent18: the fireplug ricks and does freeze jolly. sent19: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of vocal thing that is a kind of a censer is false then the limb is not a kind of a protrusion. sent20: the fact that the HIV is not a blaxploitation is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a olecranon and/or it is a cerium is wrong. sent21: the meclizine does not freeze TRM. sent22: if something that is a protrusion does not steep surpliced it is not a censer.

{B}{b}

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

the meclizine is a kind of a censer.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the meclizine is a censer. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the meclizine is a censer and it does steep vara is not correct if it is not a protrusion. sent2: if something is not climactic it is a orthogonality and is a slur. sent3: the supporter is a protrusion but it does not steep surpliced if the limb is not a orthogonality. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a censer and is a protrusion. sent5: the limb is not a protrusion. sent6: if the HIV is not a kind of a blaxploitation then the relish is a blaxploitation. sent7: if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong. sent8: something is not climactic if it is not a kind of a disaccharidase and it is not baccate. sent9: the kaoliang freezes strife. sent10: the fact that the relish is not a disaccharidase and it is not baccate is not incorrect if the fireplug does rick. sent11: if the chaetodon does not steep deltoid that that the nigger is a olecranon and/or a cerium is true is false. sent12: the meclizine is a kind of a protrusion and it is a kind of a censer if the limb does not steep surpliced. sent13: the meclizine is not a kind of a censer if something does not steep vara. sent14: the meclizine is not a censer if there exists something such that that it steeps vara and is a vocal is not right. sent15: if something that consults is not billiard then the chaetodon does not steep deltoid. sent16: there exists something such that it does steep vara and it is a vocal. sent17: something consults but it is not billiard if it freezes strife. sent18: the fireplug ricks and does freeze jolly. sent19: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of vocal thing that is a kind of a censer is false then the limb is not a kind of a protrusion. sent20: the fact that the HIV is not a blaxploitation is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a olecranon and/or it is a cerium is wrong. sent21: the meclizine does not freeze TRM. sent22: if something that is a protrusion does not steep surpliced it is not a censer. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the limb steeps vara and is a vocal is not right.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is incorrect.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the limb is not a protrusion that it does steep vara and it is a vocal is wrong.

The limb does steep vara if it is not a protrusion.

the meclizine is not a censer if there exists something such that that it steeps vara and is a vocal is not right.

the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick.

sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir.

({C}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick is not correct.

¬({C}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick. ; $context$ = sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric.

The rummer is not from the 1790s.

the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold.

the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick.

sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir.

({C}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick is not correct.

¬({C}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick. ; $context$ = sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric.

The rummer is not from 1790s.

the frill is not paschal.

the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick.

sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir.

({C}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick is not correct.

¬({C}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick. ; $context$ = sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric.

The rummer is not from the 18th century.

the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick.

the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick.

sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir.

({C}{b} & {E}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the fact that the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick is not correct.

¬({C}{b} & {E}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Champaign keratinizes Popper and is a chopstick. ; $context$ = sent1: if the frill is not a kind of a Lir then it is craniometric and is a decameter. sent2: if there is something such that that it is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is wrong the rummer does not keratinize Popper. sent3: that something is not a 1790s and does keratinize Popper is incorrect if it is craniometric. sent4: if the rummer is craniometric that the Champaign is not a decameter hold. sent5: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir. sent6: the Champaign is a Lir. sent7: the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a kind of a chopstick. sent8: the frill is both palatable and a decameter. sent9: the autoregulation is a 1790s. sent10: the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir if the fact that it is paschal is not incorrect. sent11: the rummer is not a 1790s. sent12: the Champaign is not a decameter. sent13: the frill is a kind of a chopstick or is a Lir or both if the fact that it is not paschal hold. sent14: the frill is not paschal. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a decameter. sent16: the frill is not unpronounceable. sent17: the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric. sent18: if the six-spot does not steep clinic and is a kind of a Lir then the frill is not a Lir. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the rummer is not a 1790s and is craniometric.

The rummer is not the same as the 1790s.

the Champaign is a chopstick if the frill is a Lir.

the broadtail is not eager.

sent1: if that the broadtail is a shell is right the maiden is both not non-Chian and not eager. sent2: the fact that the broadtail is a kind of a polymastigote is correct if the fact that the fact that the maiden is Chian and is not a polymastigote is correct is not correct. sent3: if something is Chian it is not eager. sent4: if the laurel-tree is eager and is not smoky then the grist is not a kind of a shell. sent5: if the broadtail is Chian then that it is not eager hold. sent6: something is not eager if that it is both not smoky and not Chian is wrong. sent7: if the laurel-tree is not Chian the grist is Chian. sent8: the fact that the presbytery is a kind of a polymastigote and it is smoky is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not smoky but it is Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of non-smoky thing that is not Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent11: if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell. sent12: the fact that the broadtail is both not smoky and Chian is wrong. sent13: if the acarine is a Etropus then the laurel-tree is not Chian and/or is not a kind of a politburo. sent14: the broadtail keratinizes count and is not three-wheel if the maiden is a polymastigote. sent15: the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent16: if the fact that there is something such that that it is a polymastigote and it is not non-smoky is not correct is not false the grist does shell. sent17: the fact that the broadtail is not smoky but it is Chian does not hold if that it is not a shell hold. sent18: the maiden is not eager. sent19: if the comforts is unconscientious thing that is a kind of a Etropus the acarine is a kind of a Etropus. sent20: if the maiden is a polymastigote then the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent21: the maiden is not eager if the fact that the broadtail is a polymastigote hold. sent22: if the broadtail keratinizes count and it is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent23: if something does keratinize count and is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent24: if something is either not Chian or not a politburo or both it is not Chian.

¬{D}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the broadtail is a polymastigote.

{E}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the broadtail is not eager. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the broadtail is a shell is right the maiden is both not non-Chian and not eager. sent2: the fact that the broadtail is a kind of a polymastigote is correct if the fact that the fact that the maiden is Chian and is not a polymastigote is correct is not correct. sent3: if something is Chian it is not eager. sent4: if the laurel-tree is eager and is not smoky then the grist is not a kind of a shell. sent5: if the broadtail is Chian then that it is not eager hold. sent6: something is not eager if that it is both not smoky and not Chian is wrong. sent7: if the laurel-tree is not Chian the grist is Chian. sent8: the fact that the presbytery is a kind of a polymastigote and it is smoky is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not smoky but it is Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of non-smoky thing that is not Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent11: if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell. sent12: the fact that the broadtail is both not smoky and Chian is wrong. sent13: if the acarine is a Etropus then the laurel-tree is not Chian and/or is not a kind of a politburo. sent14: the broadtail keratinizes count and is not three-wheel if the maiden is a polymastigote. sent15: the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent16: if the fact that there is something such that that it is a polymastigote and it is not non-smoky is not correct is not false the grist does shell. sent17: the fact that the broadtail is not smoky but it is Chian does not hold if that it is not a shell hold. sent18: the maiden is not eager. sent19: if the comforts is unconscientious thing that is a kind of a Etropus the acarine is a kind of a Etropus. sent20: if the maiden is a polymastigote then the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent21: the maiden is not eager if the fact that the broadtail is a polymastigote hold. sent22: if the broadtail keratinizes count and it is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent23: if something does keratinize count and is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent24: if something is either not Chian or not a politburo or both it is not Chian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell.

If it is not three-wheel then it is not a shell.

the fact that something is a kind of non-smoky thing that is not Chian is not correct if it does not shell.

the broadtail is not eager.

sent1: if that the broadtail is a shell is right the maiden is both not non-Chian and not eager. sent2: the fact that the broadtail is a kind of a polymastigote is correct if the fact that the fact that the maiden is Chian and is not a polymastigote is correct is not correct. sent3: if something is Chian it is not eager. sent4: if the laurel-tree is eager and is not smoky then the grist is not a kind of a shell. sent5: if the broadtail is Chian then that it is not eager hold. sent6: something is not eager if that it is both not smoky and not Chian is wrong. sent7: if the laurel-tree is not Chian the grist is Chian. sent8: the fact that the presbytery is a kind of a polymastigote and it is smoky is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not smoky but it is Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of non-smoky thing that is not Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent11: if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell. sent12: the fact that the broadtail is both not smoky and Chian is wrong. sent13: if the acarine is a Etropus then the laurel-tree is not Chian and/or is not a kind of a politburo. sent14: the broadtail keratinizes count and is not three-wheel if the maiden is a polymastigote. sent15: the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent16: if the fact that there is something such that that it is a polymastigote and it is not non-smoky is not correct is not false the grist does shell. sent17: the fact that the broadtail is not smoky but it is Chian does not hold if that it is not a shell hold. sent18: the maiden is not eager. sent19: if the comforts is unconscientious thing that is a kind of a Etropus the acarine is a kind of a Etropus. sent20: if the maiden is a polymastigote then the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent21: the maiden is not eager if the fact that the broadtail is a polymastigote hold. sent22: if the broadtail keratinizes count and it is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent23: if something does keratinize count and is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent24: if something is either not Chian or not a politburo or both it is not Chian.

¬{D}{aa}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the broadtail is a polymastigote.

{E}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the broadtail is not eager. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the broadtail is a shell is right the maiden is both not non-Chian and not eager. sent2: the fact that the broadtail is a kind of a polymastigote is correct if the fact that the fact that the maiden is Chian and is not a polymastigote is correct is not correct. sent3: if something is Chian it is not eager. sent4: if the laurel-tree is eager and is not smoky then the grist is not a kind of a shell. sent5: if the broadtail is Chian then that it is not eager hold. sent6: something is not eager if that it is both not smoky and not Chian is wrong. sent7: if the laurel-tree is not Chian the grist is Chian. sent8: the fact that the presbytery is a kind of a polymastigote and it is smoky is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not smoky but it is Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of non-smoky thing that is not Chian is not correct if it does not shell. sent11: if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell. sent12: the fact that the broadtail is both not smoky and Chian is wrong. sent13: if the acarine is a Etropus then the laurel-tree is not Chian and/or is not a kind of a politburo. sent14: the broadtail keratinizes count and is not three-wheel if the maiden is a polymastigote. sent15: the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent16: if the fact that there is something such that that it is a polymastigote and it is not non-smoky is not correct is not false the grist does shell. sent17: the fact that the broadtail is not smoky but it is Chian does not hold if that it is not a shell hold. sent18: the maiden is not eager. sent19: if the comforts is unconscientious thing that is a kind of a Etropus the acarine is a kind of a Etropus. sent20: if the maiden is a polymastigote then the broadtail is not three-wheel. sent21: the maiden is not eager if the fact that the broadtail is a polymastigote hold. sent22: if the broadtail keratinizes count and it is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent23: if something does keratinize count and is three-wheel it is not a shell. sent24: if something is either not Chian or not a politburo or both it is not Chian. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something that does keratinize count is not three-wheel then it is not a shell.

If it's not three-wheel then it's not a shell.

something is not eager if that it is both not smoky and not Chian is wrong.

there exists something such that it sparges and it does steep Correggio.

sent1: the growth does sparge. sent2: there exists something such that it is cytotoxic and is a schlemiel. sent3: the fact that the dump does steep Correggio and is a xanthine is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does steep Correggio. sent5: if the sickbay is a xanthine it is a methanol. sent6: The Correggio does steep assegai. sent7: the cassowary sparges. sent8: there exists something such that it sparges. sent9: the strait is a kind of collateral thing that does sparge. sent10: the assegai is a pacemaker. sent11: the assegai is multinucleate. sent12: there is something such that it is a diethylstilbestrol. sent13: the assegai does putter. sent14: the assegai does steep Correggio.

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

sent1: {A}{fj} sent2: (Ex): ({HT}x & {HA}x) sent3: ¬({B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: {C}{jh} -> {GF}{jh} sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: {A}{bg} sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: ({D}{gh} & {A}{gh}) sent10: {CR}{a} sent11: {CF}{a} sent12: (Ex): {BO}x sent13: {DO}{a} sent14: {B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

something is both a monition and a Koussevitzky.

(Ex): ({CO}x & {FF}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it sparges and it does steep Correggio. ; $context$ = sent1: the growth does sparge. sent2: there exists something such that it is cytotoxic and is a schlemiel. sent3: the fact that the dump does steep Correggio and is a xanthine is not correct. sent4: there is something such that it does steep Correggio. sent5: if the sickbay is a xanthine it is a methanol. sent6: The Correggio does steep assegai. sent7: the cassowary sparges. sent8: there exists something such that it sparges. sent9: the strait is a kind of collateral thing that does sparge. sent10: the assegai is a pacemaker. sent11: the assegai is multinucleate. sent12: there is something such that it is a diethylstilbestrol. sent13: the assegai does putter. sent14: the assegai does steep Correggio. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it sparges.

there exists something such that it sparges.

the fact that the dump does steep Correggio and is a xanthine is not correct.

that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false.

sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the obsolescence is not a gimbal but it is a kind of a Priam.

(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the armpit does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock.; sent4 -> int2: if the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it is not a crock it is stoppable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the armpit is stoppable.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

The landscaping in Cairo does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

the landscaping is a Cairo.

that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false.

sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the obsolescence is not a gimbal but it is a kind of a Priam.

(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the armpit does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock.; sent4 -> int2: if the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it is not a crock it is stoppable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the armpit is stoppable.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

The landscaping in Cairo doesn't steep Desmodium and it doesn't crock.

if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable.

that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false.

sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the obsolescence is not a gimbal but it is a kind of a Priam.

(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the obsolescence is not a gimbal but a Priam is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Cairo it is both not a gimbal and a Priam. sent2: the obsolescence is stoppable if the landscaping is masochistic. sent3: the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable. sent4: if something does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock it is stoppable. sent5: the landscaping is a Cairo. sent6: the landscaping is a trismus and it is masochistic if the armpit is not a convalescent. sent7: the armpit is not a convalescent if the limb does not steep hybridization and is a convalescent. sent8: something is a Cairo if it is stoppable. sent9: if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent5 -> int1: the armpit does not steep Desmodium and is not a crock.; sent4 -> int2: if the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it is not a crock it is stoppable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the armpit is stoppable.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the landscaping is a Cairo the armpit does not steep Desmodium and it does not crock.

The landscaping in Cairo does not steep Desmodium.

the fact that the obsolescence is both not a gimbal and a Priam does not hold if the armpit is stoppable.

there is something such that if it is neonatal it dates and it does not bitt stotinka.

sent1: something extorts and it is vesical if it bitts Bassia. sent2: something is machine-made if it steeps switcheroo. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a cine-film then it tsks and keratinizes Entebbe. sent4: if the Chicano does keratinize SOB it does date and it is unapologetic. sent5: the Chicano is a kind of a Arapaho that is a dating if it is a kind of a rent. sent6: there is something such that if it does freeze eviction then it reunifies and it is not a pervert. sent7: the vestment is neonatal and it is hyaloplasmic if it is catabolic. sent8: if the Chicano is a kind of a ramus then it is unairworthy. sent9: if the SOB is a folding then it bitts fivepence and is not neonatal. sent10: if the flummery is a ash-key then it steeps tucked and is a flash-forward. sent11: something does keratinize anatotitan and it is a Characidae if it steeps hyperbole. sent12: there is something such that if it is a Dictaphone it does keratinize Nitrobacter and it is a kind of a Kentucky. sent13: if the Chicano is obvious it dates and does freeze Megaera.

(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: (x): {M}x -> ({JE}x & {JB}x) sent2: (x): {CO}x -> {CH}x sent3: (Ex): {CD}x -> ({ED}x & {IK}x) sent4: {FB}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {HU}{aa}) sent5: {JD}{aa} -> ({AD}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {IU}x -> ({IE}x & ¬{JK}x) sent7: {FM}{gf} -> ({A}{gf} & {L}{gf}) sent8: {HC}{aa} -> {HT}{aa} sent9: {HH}{hb} -> ({AE}{hb} & ¬{A}{hb}) sent10: {ES}{gs} -> ({BB}{gs} & {IM}{gs}) sent11: (x): {BU}x -> ({HM}x & {IO}x) sent12: (Ex): {DK}x -> ({E}x & {FG}x) sent13: {BK}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {DD}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is neonatal it dates and it does not bitt stotinka. ; $context$ = sent1: something extorts and it is vesical if it bitts Bassia. sent2: something is machine-made if it steeps switcheroo. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a cine-film then it tsks and keratinizes Entebbe. sent4: if the Chicano does keratinize SOB it does date and it is unapologetic. sent5: the Chicano is a kind of a Arapaho that is a dating if it is a kind of a rent. sent6: there is something such that if it does freeze eviction then it reunifies and it is not a pervert. sent7: the vestment is neonatal and it is hyaloplasmic if it is catabolic. sent8: if the Chicano is a kind of a ramus then it is unairworthy. sent9: if the SOB is a folding then it bitts fivepence and is not neonatal. sent10: if the flummery is a ash-key then it steeps tucked and is a flash-forward. sent11: something does keratinize anatotitan and it is a Characidae if it steeps hyperbole. sent12: there is something such that if it is a Dictaphone it does keratinize Nitrobacter and it is a kind of a Kentucky. sent13: if the Chicano is obvious it dates and does freeze Megaera. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the vestment is neonatal and it is hyaloplasmic if it is catabolic.

the vestment is neonatal and it is hyaloplasmic if it is catabolic.

if the Chicano is a kind of a ramus then it is unairworthy.

the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle.

sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager.

(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the chiropractor is not a onager and/or does not idle is true is not right.

¬(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle. ; $context$ = sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the pip is not nonprofessional or is nonclassical or both.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: that the immigrant is a kind of a onager hold.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not crustal.

There is something that is not crustal.

that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal.

the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle.

sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager.

(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the chiropractor is not a onager and/or does not idle is true is not right.

¬(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle. ; $context$ = sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the pip is not nonprofessional or is nonclassical or both.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: that the immigrant is a kind of a onager hold.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not crustal.

There is a thing that is not crustal.

the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both.

the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle.

sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager.

(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

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

PROVED

PROVED

the fact that that the chiropractor is not a onager and/or does not idle is true is not right.

¬(¬{D}{c} v ¬{E}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the chiropractor is not a kind of a onager and/or does not idle. ; $context$ = sent1: the pip is nonclassical and it is nonprofessional if it is not a octoroon. sent2: the chiropractor is either not a onager or an idle or both if the immigrant is a onager. sent3: either the chiropractor is not a onager or it does idle or both if something is classical. sent4: if the immigrant is a kind of an instrument then it does bitt Desmodium. sent5: the immigrant is a kind of a onager if the pip is either not nonprofessional or nonclassical or both. sent6: the immigrant is a onager if the pip is not nonprofessional. sent7: if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both. sent8: the pip is not a octoroon if the fact that the immigrant is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a octoroon is false. sent9: that something is a kind of non-brahminic thing that is not a kind of a octoroon does not hold if it bitts Desmodium. sent10: that the pip is not nonprofessional and/or it is nonclassical hold if there is something such that it is not crustal. sent11: there exists something such that it is not crustal. sent12: there is something such that it is not a onager. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent10 -> int1: the pip is not nonprofessional or is nonclassical or both.; sent5 & int1 -> int2: that the immigrant is a kind of a onager hold.; sent7 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it is not crustal.

There is something that isn't crustal.

if the immigrant is a onager the chiropractor is either not a onager or not idle or both.

the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens.

sent1: the fact that if the clawback happens the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is not true is right. sent2: if the cerousness does not occur that the clawback does not occur but the Best happens does not hold. sent3: the conceptualization does not occur and the keratinizing orthogonality happens. sent4: the clawback happens if that the clawback does not occur and the Best happens is false. sent5: that the keratinizing micrometer but not the chirp occurs is brought about by the non-hotness. sent6: if the fact that the larceny happens but the freezing lenience does not occur is not correct then the larceny does not occur. sent7: if the glomming does not occur the Albanianness occurs or the calmness does not occur or both. sent8: if the Albanianness does not occur then the fact that the calmness and the freezing recognition happens hold. sent9: the fact that the freezing lenience happens and the larceny does not occur is incorrect if the freezing recognition happens. sent10: the larceny does not occur if the freezing recognition does not occur. sent11: if the chirp does not occur then that the prenatalness occurs and the pietisticness happens is not true. sent12: the larceny does not occur. sent13: the isolation does not occur but the freezing birdnesting occurs if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the freezing recognition does not occur then the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. sent15: the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent16: if the recapture occurs then the Albanianness does not occur and the glomming does not occur. sent17: if that the premeditating does not occur is correct then the fact that the backhander does not occur but the exudation occurs is correct. sent18: the premeditating does not occur if the fact that the prenatalness happens and the pietisticness occurs is not correct. sent19: the hotness does not occur if the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is incorrect. sent20: that the larceny occurs and the freezing lenience does not occur is false if the fact that the freezing recognition happens is not incorrect. sent21: the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent22: if the backhander does not occur the nonmodernness happens and the recapture occurs.

({C} & ¬{A})

sent1: {S} -> ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) sent2: ¬{U} -> ¬(¬{S} & {T}) sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{S} & {T}) -> {S} sent5: ¬{P} -> ({O} & ¬{N}) sent6: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({E} v ¬{D}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {B}) sent9: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent11: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & {M}) sent12: ¬{A} sent13: ¬{A} -> (¬{EM} & {DF}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({C} & ¬{A}) sent15: {AB} sent16: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent17: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent18: ¬({L} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent19: ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{P} sent20: {B} -> ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent21: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent22: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G})

PROVED

PROVED

the isolation does not occur and the freezing birdnesting happens.

(¬{EM} & {DF})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the clawback happens the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is not true is right. sent2: if the cerousness does not occur that the clawback does not occur but the Best happens does not hold. sent3: the conceptualization does not occur and the keratinizing orthogonality happens. sent4: the clawback happens if that the clawback does not occur and the Best happens is false. sent5: that the keratinizing micrometer but not the chirp occurs is brought about by the non-hotness. sent6: if the fact that the larceny happens but the freezing lenience does not occur is not correct then the larceny does not occur. sent7: if the glomming does not occur the Albanianness occurs or the calmness does not occur or both. sent8: if the Albanianness does not occur then the fact that the calmness and the freezing recognition happens hold. sent9: the fact that the freezing lenience happens and the larceny does not occur is incorrect if the freezing recognition happens. sent10: the larceny does not occur if the freezing recognition does not occur. sent11: if the chirp does not occur then that the prenatalness occurs and the pietisticness happens is not true. sent12: the larceny does not occur. sent13: the isolation does not occur but the freezing birdnesting occurs if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the freezing recognition does not occur then the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. sent15: the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent16: if the recapture occurs then the Albanianness does not occur and the glomming does not occur. sent17: if that the premeditating does not occur is correct then the fact that the backhander does not occur but the exudation occurs is correct. sent18: the premeditating does not occur if the fact that the prenatalness happens and the pietisticness occurs is not correct. sent19: the hotness does not occur if the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is incorrect. sent20: that the larceny occurs and the freezing lenience does not occur is false if the fact that the freezing recognition happens is not incorrect. sent21: the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent22: if the backhander does not occur the nonmodernness happens and the recapture occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent21 & sent3 -> int1: the freezing recognition does not occur.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs.

The freezing recognition is prevented by the fact that the conceptualization does not happen.

the conceptualization does not occur and the keratinizing orthogonality happens.

the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens.

sent1: the fact that if the clawback happens the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is not true is right. sent2: if the cerousness does not occur that the clawback does not occur but the Best happens does not hold. sent3: the conceptualization does not occur and the keratinizing orthogonality happens. sent4: the clawback happens if that the clawback does not occur and the Best happens is false. sent5: that the keratinizing micrometer but not the chirp occurs is brought about by the non-hotness. sent6: if the fact that the larceny happens but the freezing lenience does not occur is not correct then the larceny does not occur. sent7: if the glomming does not occur the Albanianness occurs or the calmness does not occur or both. sent8: if the Albanianness does not occur then the fact that the calmness and the freezing recognition happens hold. sent9: the fact that the freezing lenience happens and the larceny does not occur is incorrect if the freezing recognition happens. sent10: the larceny does not occur if the freezing recognition does not occur. sent11: if the chirp does not occur then that the prenatalness occurs and the pietisticness happens is not true. sent12: the larceny does not occur. sent13: the isolation does not occur but the freezing birdnesting occurs if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the freezing recognition does not occur then the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. sent15: the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent16: if the recapture occurs then the Albanianness does not occur and the glomming does not occur. sent17: if that the premeditating does not occur is correct then the fact that the backhander does not occur but the exudation occurs is correct. sent18: the premeditating does not occur if the fact that the prenatalness happens and the pietisticness occurs is not correct. sent19: the hotness does not occur if the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is incorrect. sent20: that the larceny occurs and the freezing lenience does not occur is false if the fact that the freezing recognition happens is not incorrect. sent21: the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent22: if the backhander does not occur the nonmodernness happens and the recapture occurs.

({C} & ¬{A})

sent1: {S} -> ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) sent2: ¬{U} -> ¬(¬{S} & {T}) sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{S} & {T}) -> {S} sent5: ¬{P} -> ({O} & ¬{N}) sent6: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({E} v ¬{D}) sent8: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {B}) sent9: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent10: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent11: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} & {M}) sent12: ¬{A} sent13: ¬{A} -> (¬{EM} & {DF}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({C} & ¬{A}) sent15: {AB} sent16: {G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent17: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent18: ¬({L} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent19: ¬(¬{R} & ¬{Q}) -> ¬{P} sent20: {B} -> ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent21: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent22: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G})

PROVED

PROVED

the isolation does not occur and the freezing birdnesting happens.

(¬{EM} & {DF})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the clawback happens the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is not true is right. sent2: if the cerousness does not occur that the clawback does not occur but the Best happens does not hold. sent3: the conceptualization does not occur and the keratinizing orthogonality happens. sent4: the clawback happens if that the clawback does not occur and the Best happens is false. sent5: that the keratinizing micrometer but not the chirp occurs is brought about by the non-hotness. sent6: if the fact that the larceny happens but the freezing lenience does not occur is not correct then the larceny does not occur. sent7: if the glomming does not occur the Albanianness occurs or the calmness does not occur or both. sent8: if the Albanianness does not occur then the fact that the calmness and the freezing recognition happens hold. sent9: the fact that the freezing lenience happens and the larceny does not occur is incorrect if the freezing recognition happens. sent10: the larceny does not occur if the freezing recognition does not occur. sent11: if the chirp does not occur then that the prenatalness occurs and the pietisticness happens is not true. sent12: the larceny does not occur. sent13: the isolation does not occur but the freezing birdnesting occurs if the larceny does not occur. sent14: if the freezing recognition does not occur then the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens. sent15: the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent16: if the recapture occurs then the Albanianness does not occur and the glomming does not occur. sent17: if that the premeditating does not occur is correct then the fact that the backhander does not occur but the exudation occurs is correct. sent18: the premeditating does not occur if the fact that the prenatalness happens and the pietisticness occurs is not correct. sent19: the hotness does not occur if the fact that the moot does not occur and the assessment does not occur is incorrect. sent20: that the larceny occurs and the freezing lenience does not occur is false if the fact that the freezing recognition happens is not incorrect. sent21: the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs. sent22: if the backhander does not occur the nonmodernness happens and the recapture occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent21 & sent3 -> int1: the freezing recognition does not occur.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the freezing recognition is prevented by that the conceptualization does not occur but the keratinizing orthogonality occurs.

The freezing recognition is prevented by the fact that the conceptualization does not occur.

if the freezing recognition does not occur then the freezing lenience but not the larceny happens.

the fact that the arthrospore is not an inventor but it is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide is right.

sent1: the arthrospore is a palfrey. sent2: the medication is not a waffle. sent3: the fact that something is not a palfrey and is equitable is wrong if it is a topicality. sent4: the arthrospore is not an inventor. sent5: the bunkmate is a kind of a palfrey but it is not a hagiography. sent6: if the medication is Delphic the arthrospore is a topicality. sent7: if something is equitable the fact that it is not an inventor and is a calcium-cyanamide is false. sent8: something is Delphic if it is a hagiography. sent9: if the arthrospore is an inventor it is not a palfrey. sent10: if the bunkmate is a kind of a palfrey that is not a hagiography the medication is not a palfrey. sent11: if something is not a kind of a waffle it is Abkhaz thing that is a kind of a hagiography.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the pavior is an inventor.

{AA}{p}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the arthrospore is not an inventor but it is a kind of a calcium-cyanamide is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the arthrospore is a palfrey. sent2: the medication is not a waffle. sent3: the fact that something is not a palfrey and is equitable is wrong if it is a topicality. sent4: the arthrospore is not an inventor. sent5: the bunkmate is a kind of a palfrey but it is not a hagiography. sent6: if the medication is Delphic the arthrospore is a topicality. sent7: if something is equitable the fact that it is not an inventor and is a calcium-cyanamide is false. sent8: something is Delphic if it is a hagiography. sent9: if the arthrospore is an inventor it is not a palfrey. sent10: if the bunkmate is a kind of a palfrey that is not a hagiography the medication is not a palfrey. sent11: if something is not a kind of a waffle it is Abkhaz thing that is a kind of a hagiography. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the arthrospore is an inventor it is not a palfrey.

if the arthrospore is an inventor it is not a palfrey.

if the bunkmate is a kind of a palfrey that is not a hagiography the medication is not a palfrey.

that there exists something such that the fact that it is not electronic and it is not a decentralization does not hold is not true.

sent1: that that the tampion is not electronic and it is not a kind of a decentralization is not correct is correct if there is something such that it is not a burrow. sent2: something does not burrow.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x))

sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that the fact that it is not electronic and it is not a decentralization does not hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the tampion is not electronic and it is not a kind of a decentralization is not correct is correct if there is something such that it is not a burrow. sent2: something does not burrow. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the tampion is not electronic and not a decentralization does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not burrow.

something does not burrow.

that that the tampion is not electronic and it is not a kind of a decentralization is not correct is correct if there is something such that it is not a burrow.

something is not a kind of a praenomen and is not cecal.

sent1: the advisee is both not a Munch and not stereoscopic. sent2: there exists something such that it does not keratinize confrontation. sent3: the advisee is not a praenomen if there is something such that it does not cram. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a saddle and it is not preprandial. sent5: something does not cram. sent6: something does cram. sent7: if something does not cram the advisee is not a praenomen and it is not cecal. sent8: the fact that the advisee is a kind of worthy thing that is not diagnostic is right. sent9: there are non-cecal things. sent10: the advisee is not a praenomen.

(Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)

sent1: (¬{F}{a} & ¬{IP}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{DI}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: (Ex): (¬{IJ}x & ¬{IN}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: (¬{GO}{a} & ¬{IR}{a}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent10: ¬{B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = something is not a kind of a praenomen and is not cecal. ; $context$ = sent1: the advisee is both not a Munch and not stereoscopic. sent2: there exists something such that it does not keratinize confrontation. sent3: the advisee is not a praenomen if there is something such that it does not cram. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a saddle and it is not preprandial. sent5: something does not cram. sent6: something does cram. sent7: if something does not cram the advisee is not a praenomen and it is not cecal. sent8: the fact that the advisee is a kind of worthy thing that is not diagnostic is right. sent9: there are non-cecal things. sent10: the advisee is not a praenomen. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the advisee is not a praenomen and it is non-cecal.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something does not cram.

something does not cram.

if something does not cram the advisee is not a praenomen and it is not cecal.

the guacamole is non-Mormons and is not a Bolshevism.

sent1: if something is distal then it is not cloudy. sent2: the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal. sent3: if the guacamole is a Bolshevism then it is not a gaminess. sent4: something is not a tonic if it is a kind of an alsatian. sent5: that the guacamole is not a Bolshevism but it does keratinize petroglyph does not hold if that it is not noncausative is not wrong. sent6: the coolant is a kind of a venture and it is a nudism. sent7: the fact that the fact that the pullulation is not distal and it is not shockable is true does not hold. sent8: the guacamole is not noncausative. sent9: that if something is not cloudy then that it is not a Mormons and it is not a Bolshevism is incorrect is not incorrect. sent10: that if something is a gaminess it is not servomechanical is not wrong.

(¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬{BL}{a} sent4: (x): {HA}x -> ¬{DO}x sent5: ¬{BH}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {GH}{a}) sent6: ({DQ}{dj} & {BQ}{dj}) sent7: ¬(¬{B}{ik} & ¬{FH}{ik}) sent8: ¬{BH}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: (x): {BL}x -> ¬{GS}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the guacamole is non-Mormons and is not a Bolshevism. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is distal then it is not cloudy. sent2: the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal. sent3: if the guacamole is a Bolshevism then it is not a gaminess. sent4: something is not a tonic if it is a kind of an alsatian. sent5: that the guacamole is not a Bolshevism but it does keratinize petroglyph does not hold if that it is not noncausative is not wrong. sent6: the coolant is a kind of a venture and it is a nudism. sent7: the fact that the fact that the pullulation is not distal and it is not shockable is true does not hold. sent8: the guacamole is not noncausative. sent9: that if something is not cloudy then that it is not a Mormons and it is not a Bolshevism is incorrect is not incorrect. sent10: that if something is a gaminess it is not servomechanical is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the guacamole is distal.; sent1 -> int2: if the guacamole is distal then it is not cloudy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the guacamole is not cloudy.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that the guacamole is not a kind of a Mormons and is not a kind of a Bolshevism is not right if it is not cloudy.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal.

The guacamole does steep leopardess.

if something is distal then it is not cloudy.

the guacamole is non-Mormons and is not a Bolshevism.

sent1: if something is distal then it is not cloudy. sent2: the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal. sent3: if the guacamole is a Bolshevism then it is not a gaminess. sent4: something is not a tonic if it is a kind of an alsatian. sent5: that the guacamole is not a Bolshevism but it does keratinize petroglyph does not hold if that it is not noncausative is not wrong. sent6: the coolant is a kind of a venture and it is a nudism. sent7: the fact that the fact that the pullulation is not distal and it is not shockable is true does not hold. sent8: the guacamole is not noncausative. sent9: that if something is not cloudy then that it is not a Mormons and it is not a Bolshevism is incorrect is not incorrect. sent10: that if something is a gaminess it is not servomechanical is not wrong.

(¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}x sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬{BL}{a} sent4: (x): {HA}x -> ¬{DO}x sent5: ¬{BH}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {GH}{a}) sent6: ({DQ}{dj} & {BQ}{dj}) sent7: ¬(¬{B}{ik} & ¬{FH}{ik}) sent8: ¬{BH}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: (x): {BL}x -> ¬{GS}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the guacamole is non-Mormons and is not a Bolshevism. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is distal then it is not cloudy. sent2: the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal. sent3: if the guacamole is a Bolshevism then it is not a gaminess. sent4: something is not a tonic if it is a kind of an alsatian. sent5: that the guacamole is not a Bolshevism but it does keratinize petroglyph does not hold if that it is not noncausative is not wrong. sent6: the coolant is a kind of a venture and it is a nudism. sent7: the fact that the fact that the pullulation is not distal and it is not shockable is true does not hold. sent8: the guacamole is not noncausative. sent9: that if something is not cloudy then that it is not a Mormons and it is not a Bolshevism is incorrect is not incorrect. sent10: that if something is a gaminess it is not servomechanical is not wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the guacamole is distal.; sent1 -> int2: if the guacamole is distal then it is not cloudy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the guacamole is not cloudy.; sent9 -> int4: the fact that the guacamole is not a kind of a Mormons and is not a kind of a Bolshevism is not right if it is not cloudy.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the guacamole does steep leopardess and is distal.

The guacamole is steep.

that if something is not cloudy then that it is not a Mormons and it is not a Bolshevism is incorrect is not incorrect.

the infanticide does not freeze housedog.

sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: {C}{gk} sent3: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{GF}x sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: ¬{HP}{a} sent6: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {AA}{c}) sent7: {FF}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: ¬{A}{c} -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the infanticide does not freeze housedog. ; $context$ = sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: that the endodontist is both not barytic and unfamiliar is false.; sent13 -> int2: the endodontist does not deliver if the fact that it is not barytic and it is unfamiliar does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the endodontist does not deliver hold.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold.

The fact that the endodontist is not barytic does not hold if the cangue is a Lorca.

the cangue is a Lorca.

the infanticide does not freeze housedog.

sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: {C}{gk} sent3: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{GF}x sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: ¬{HP}{a} sent6: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {AA}{c}) sent7: {FF}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: ¬{A}{c} -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the infanticide does not freeze housedog. ; $context$ = sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: that the endodontist is both not barytic and unfamiliar is false.; sent13 -> int2: the endodontist does not deliver if the fact that it is not barytic and it is unfamiliar does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the endodontist does not deliver hold.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold.

The fact that the endodontist isn't barytic doesn't hold if the cangue is a Lorca.

something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false.

the infanticide does not freeze housedog.

sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog.

¬{C}{c}

sent1: ¬{C}{a} sent2: {C}{gk} sent3: (x): {BG}x -> ¬{GF}x sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: ¬{HP}{a} sent6: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{c} & {AA}{c}) sent7: {FF}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent15: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: {A}{a} sent17: ¬{A}{c} -> {C}{a} sent18: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{C}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the infanticide does not freeze housedog. ; $context$ = sent1: the cangue does not freeze housedog. sent2: the psilomelane does freeze housedog. sent3: that if something freezes floss then that it is not a swab is not false is correct. sent4: the fact that the cangue is unfamiliar is correct. sent5: the cangue is not invitational. sent6: that the infanticide is a kind of non-unfamiliar thing that is barytic does not hold if the endodontist delivers. sent7: the endodontist is eschatological. sent8: if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold. sent9: that the endodontist does not freeze housedog and does deliver is false. sent10: if the fact that something does not deliver and is a Lorca is not correct it is not barytic. sent11: something is not barytic if that it is not a kind of a Lorca and does freeze housedog is false. sent12: the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver. sent13: something does not deliver if that it is both not barytic and not familiar is false. sent14: that the endodontist is barytic and it is unfamiliar is wrong. sent15: that the endodontist is a Lorca if the cangue is not barytic is right. sent16: the cangue is a Lorca. sent17: if the infanticide is not a Lorca the cangue freezes housedog. sent18: if something is barytic then it does not freeze housedog. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent16 -> int1: that the endodontist is both not barytic and unfamiliar is false.; sent13 -> int2: the endodontist does not deliver if the fact that it is not barytic and it is unfamiliar does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the endodontist does not deliver hold.; int3 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

if the cangue is a Lorca the fact that the endodontist is not barytic but it is unfamiliar does not hold.

The fact that the endodontist is not barytic doesn't hold if the cangue is a Lorca.

the infanticide freezes housedog if the endodontist does not deliver.

the schoolmate is not a kind of a spoil or it freezes linkboy or both.

sent1: something freezes estradiol if the fact that it is a abampere and it does not freezes estradiol does not hold. sent2: that the Muscat is a abampere and does not freeze estradiol does not hold if the margay is a riposte. sent3: if something does not freeze estradiol the Muscat is a abampere and does riposte. sent4: if the Muscat is a abampere the schoolmate is not a spoil and/or freezes linkboy. sent5: the schoolmate either does spoil or freezes linkboy or both if the Muscat is a kind of a abampere. sent6: something does spoil.

(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

that the schoolmate is not a spoil and/or it freezes linkboy is incorrect.

¬(¬{E}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the schoolmate is not a kind of a spoil or it freezes linkboy or both. ; $context$ = sent1: something freezes estradiol if the fact that it is a abampere and it does not freezes estradiol does not hold. sent2: that the Muscat is a abampere and does not freeze estradiol does not hold if the margay is a riposte. sent3: if something does not freeze estradiol the Muscat is a abampere and does riposte. sent4: if the Muscat is a abampere the schoolmate is not a spoil and/or freezes linkboy. sent5: the schoolmate either does spoil or freezes linkboy or both if the Muscat is a kind of a abampere. sent6: something does spoil. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if something does not freeze estradiol the Muscat is a abampere and does riposte.

if something does not freeze estradiol the Muscat is a abampere and does riposte.

the schoolmate either does spoil or freezes linkboy or both if the Muscat is a kind of a abampere.

the molt is not batholithic.

sent1: something that does not freeze confrontation and does not steep siamese is not a returning. sent2: the siamese is a kind of a returning. sent3: the siamese is both a pepperwort and intervertebral. sent4: that the siamese steeps siamese and freezes confrontation is not right. sent5: something is batholithic if it is not a nipa. sent6: if that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not correct then it does rat. sent7: the fact that the MA is Parthian but it does not freeze cutworm does not hold. sent8: the fact that the fact that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not false is false. sent9: the fact that the molt is not batholithic if the siamese is a rat that is a kind of a nipa is not false. sent10: if the siamese is not a returning then that the molt is a nipa and it does rat does not hold.

¬{D}{b}

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

the molt is batholithic.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the molt is not batholithic. ; $context$ = sent1: something that does not freeze confrontation and does not steep siamese is not a returning. sent2: the siamese is a kind of a returning. sent3: the siamese is both a pepperwort and intervertebral. sent4: that the siamese steeps siamese and freezes confrontation is not right. sent5: something is batholithic if it is not a nipa. sent6: if that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not correct then it does rat. sent7: the fact that the MA is Parthian but it does not freeze cutworm does not hold. sent8: the fact that the fact that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not false is false. sent9: the fact that the molt is not batholithic if the siamese is a rat that is a kind of a nipa is not false. sent10: if the siamese is not a returning then that the molt is a nipa and it does rat does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not correct then it does rat.

if that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not correct then it does rat.

the fact that the fact that the siamese does steep siamese and does not freeze confrontation is not false is false.

the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs is not false.

sent1: if the fact that both the keratinizing absorptance and the non-neuroticness occurs is incorrect the fact that the nondisposableness does not occur is not wrong. sent2: the viralness does not occur. sent3: the timework happens. sent4: if the whiting occurs then the keratinizing work-shirt happens. sent5: if the benignity does not occur the spending happens. sent6: that the bitting eelworm does not occur is triggered by that the radial does not occur or the Rooseveltianness does not occur or both. sent7: if the nondisposableness does not occur then the heater but not the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent8: if the fact that the allopatricness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the keratinizing absorptance occurs and the neurotic does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs. sent10: the rings happens. sent11: if the fact that the keratinizing divi-divi happens hold then the closed-circuitness occurs. sent12: the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur is true if the viralness occurs and the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent13: if the bitting eelworm does not occur the fact that the diabeticness and the steeping megawatt occurs does not hold. sent14: the grip does not occur. sent15: that the notching does not occur is prevented by the hydroelectricity. sent16: the keratinizing dilutant occurs. sent17: the civility happens if the fact that the tuberousness does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur. sent19: the sit-down occurs. sent20: if the steeping Pennsylvanian happens the keratinizing length happens. sent21: that the Caliphate occurs is caused by the non-premenstrualness. sent22: the allopatricness does not occur if that both the diabetic and the steeping megawatt occurs is wrong. sent23: the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs if the heater occurs.

{D}

sent1: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {ES} sent4: {N} -> {DJ} sent5: ¬{EL} -> {BB} sent6: (¬{M} v ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: {R} sent11: {CF} -> {FU} sent12: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{K} -> ¬({I} & {J}) sent14: ¬{FO} sent15: {ED} -> {AE} sent16: {JF} sent17: ¬{CL} -> {II} sent18: ¬{A} -> {B} sent19: {AI} sent20: {IM} -> {BR} sent21: ¬{GK} -> {DA} sent22: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent23: {C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that both the keratinizing absorptance and the non-neuroticness occurs is incorrect the fact that the nondisposableness does not occur is not wrong. sent2: the viralness does not occur. sent3: the timework happens. sent4: if the whiting occurs then the keratinizing work-shirt happens. sent5: if the benignity does not occur the spending happens. sent6: that the bitting eelworm does not occur is triggered by that the radial does not occur or the Rooseveltianness does not occur or both. sent7: if the nondisposableness does not occur then the heater but not the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent8: if the fact that the allopatricness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the keratinizing absorptance occurs and the neurotic does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs. sent10: the rings happens. sent11: if the fact that the keratinizing divi-divi happens hold then the closed-circuitness occurs. sent12: the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur is true if the viralness occurs and the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent13: if the bitting eelworm does not occur the fact that the diabeticness and the steeping megawatt occurs does not hold. sent14: the grip does not occur. sent15: that the notching does not occur is prevented by the hydroelectricity. sent16: the keratinizing dilutant occurs. sent17: the civility happens if the fact that the tuberousness does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur. sent19: the sit-down occurs. sent20: if the steeping Pennsylvanian happens the keratinizing length happens. sent21: that the Caliphate occurs is caused by the non-premenstrualness. sent22: the allopatricness does not occur if that both the diabetic and the steeping megawatt occurs is wrong. sent23: the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs if the heater occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent2 -> int1: the keratinizing decalcification happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the heater occurs.; sent23 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur.

The decalcification doesn't happen because the viralness doesn't occur.

the viralness does not occur.

the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs is not false.

sent1: if the fact that both the keratinizing absorptance and the non-neuroticness occurs is incorrect the fact that the nondisposableness does not occur is not wrong. sent2: the viralness does not occur. sent3: the timework happens. sent4: if the whiting occurs then the keratinizing work-shirt happens. sent5: if the benignity does not occur the spending happens. sent6: that the bitting eelworm does not occur is triggered by that the radial does not occur or the Rooseveltianness does not occur or both. sent7: if the nondisposableness does not occur then the heater but not the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent8: if the fact that the allopatricness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the keratinizing absorptance occurs and the neurotic does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs. sent10: the rings happens. sent11: if the fact that the keratinizing divi-divi happens hold then the closed-circuitness occurs. sent12: the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur is true if the viralness occurs and the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent13: if the bitting eelworm does not occur the fact that the diabeticness and the steeping megawatt occurs does not hold. sent14: the grip does not occur. sent15: that the notching does not occur is prevented by the hydroelectricity. sent16: the keratinizing dilutant occurs. sent17: the civility happens if the fact that the tuberousness does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur. sent19: the sit-down occurs. sent20: if the steeping Pennsylvanian happens the keratinizing length happens. sent21: that the Caliphate occurs is caused by the non-premenstrualness. sent22: the allopatricness does not occur if that both the diabetic and the steeping megawatt occurs is wrong. sent23: the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs if the heater occurs.

{D}

sent1: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {ES} sent4: {N} -> {DJ} sent5: ¬{EL} -> {BB} sent6: (¬{M} v ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: {R} sent11: {CF} -> {FU} sent12: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{K} -> ¬({I} & {J}) sent14: ¬{FO} sent15: {ED} -> {AE} sent16: {JF} sent17: ¬{CL} -> {II} sent18: ¬{A} -> {B} sent19: {AI} sent20: {IM} -> {BR} sent21: ¬{GK} -> {DA} sent22: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent23: {C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that both the keratinizing absorptance and the non-neuroticness occurs is incorrect the fact that the nondisposableness does not occur is not wrong. sent2: the viralness does not occur. sent3: the timework happens. sent4: if the whiting occurs then the keratinizing work-shirt happens. sent5: if the benignity does not occur the spending happens. sent6: that the bitting eelworm does not occur is triggered by that the radial does not occur or the Rooseveltianness does not occur or both. sent7: if the nondisposableness does not occur then the heater but not the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent8: if the fact that the allopatricness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the keratinizing absorptance occurs and the neurotic does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs. sent10: the rings happens. sent11: if the fact that the keratinizing divi-divi happens hold then the closed-circuitness occurs. sent12: the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur is true if the viralness occurs and the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent13: if the bitting eelworm does not occur the fact that the diabeticness and the steeping megawatt occurs does not hold. sent14: the grip does not occur. sent15: that the notching does not occur is prevented by the hydroelectricity. sent16: the keratinizing dilutant occurs. sent17: the civility happens if the fact that the tuberousness does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur. sent19: the sit-down occurs. sent20: if the steeping Pennsylvanian happens the keratinizing length happens. sent21: that the Caliphate occurs is caused by the non-premenstrualness. sent22: the allopatricness does not occur if that both the diabetic and the steeping megawatt occurs is wrong. sent23: the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs if the heater occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent2 -> int1: the keratinizing decalcification happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the heater occurs.; sent23 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur.

The viralness doesn't occur so that the keratinizing decalcification doesn't happen.

if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs.

the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs is not false.

sent1: if the fact that both the keratinizing absorptance and the non-neuroticness occurs is incorrect the fact that the nondisposableness does not occur is not wrong. sent2: the viralness does not occur. sent3: the timework happens. sent4: if the whiting occurs then the keratinizing work-shirt happens. sent5: if the benignity does not occur the spending happens. sent6: that the bitting eelworm does not occur is triggered by that the radial does not occur or the Rooseveltianness does not occur or both. sent7: if the nondisposableness does not occur then the heater but not the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent8: if the fact that the allopatricness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the keratinizing absorptance occurs and the neurotic does not occur does not hold. sent9: if the keratinizing decalcification occurs then the heater occurs. sent10: the rings happens. sent11: if the fact that the keratinizing divi-divi happens hold then the closed-circuitness occurs. sent12: the fact that the keratinizing atorvastatin does not occur is true if the viralness occurs and the keratinizing decalcification happens. sent13: if the bitting eelworm does not occur the fact that the diabeticness and the steeping megawatt occurs does not hold. sent14: the grip does not occur. sent15: that the notching does not occur is prevented by the hydroelectricity. sent16: the keratinizing dilutant occurs. sent17: the civility happens if the fact that the tuberousness does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: that the keratinizing decalcification does not occur is prevented by that the viralness does not occur. sent19: the sit-down occurs. sent20: if the steeping Pennsylvanian happens the keratinizing length happens. sent21: that the Caliphate occurs is caused by the non-premenstrualness. sent22: the allopatricness does not occur if that both the diabetic and the steeping megawatt occurs is wrong. sent23: the keratinizing atorvastatin occurs if the heater occurs.

{D}

sent1: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{A} sent3: {ES} sent4: {N} -> {DJ} sent5: ¬{EL} -> {BB} sent6: (¬{M} v ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent7: ¬{E} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent8: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: {R} sent11: {CF} -> {FU} sent12: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent13: ¬{K} -> ¬({I} & {J}) sent14: ¬{FO} sent15: {ED} -> {AE} sent16: {JF} sent17: ¬{CL} -> {II} sent18: ¬{A} -> {B} sent19: {AI} sent20: {IM} -> {BR} sent21: ¬{GK} -> {DA} sent22: ¬({I} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent23: {C} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED