Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2

like 7

DeductionInstance

the suggestion does not occur.

¬{C}

sent1: that that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is incorrect if the speaking Maracaibo occurs hold. sent2: the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold. sent3: the apologeticsness occurs. sent4: if the swooping erythroderma does not occur the untranslatableness happens and the suggestion happens. sent5: the filtration happens. sent6: if the fact that the fact that not the recruiting USCB but the leptosporangiateness occurs hold is not correct then the meniscectomy happens. sent7: the commandment is prevented by that the meniscectomy but not the swooping firmness happens. sent8: that the recruiting USCB does not occur and the leptosporangiateness happens does not hold. sent9: the inconsiderableness and the speaking Maracaibo occurs if the recruiting Ur does not occur. sent10: the swooping erythroderma happens. sent11: if the untranslatableness occurs and the swooping erythroderma happens then the suggestion does not occur. sent12: if the Koranicness occurs then the fact that the dodging dimorphism occurs but the dodging Lawrence does not occur does not hold. sent13: the recruiting Plautus and the praetorianness happens. sent14: that the aspersion happens and the Koranicness happens is caused by that the commandment does not occur. sent15: the littleness does not occur if the fact that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is not correct. sent16: that the dodging Lawrence does not occur leads to that both the recruiting Ur and the speaking Maracaibo occurs. sent17: if the fact that the inconsiderableness happens hold then that not the littleness but the heaves happens does not hold. sent18: the swooping erythroderma does not occur if that both the non-littleness and the heaving occurs does not hold. sent19: the recruiting Ur does not occur if that the dodging dimorphism but not the dodging Lawrence happens is not correct.

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

the suggestion happens.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the suggestion does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is incorrect if the speaking Maracaibo occurs hold. sent2: the shape-up happens and the untranslatableness occurs if that the swooping erythroderma does not occur hold. sent3: the apologeticsness occurs. sent4: if the swooping erythroderma does not occur the untranslatableness happens and the suggestion happens. sent5: the filtration happens. sent6: if the fact that the fact that not the recruiting USCB but the leptosporangiateness occurs hold is not correct then the meniscectomy happens. sent7: the commandment is prevented by that the meniscectomy but not the swooping firmness happens. sent8: that the recruiting USCB does not occur and the leptosporangiateness happens does not hold. sent9: the inconsiderableness and the speaking Maracaibo occurs if the recruiting Ur does not occur. sent10: the swooping erythroderma happens. sent11: if the untranslatableness occurs and the swooping erythroderma happens then the suggestion does not occur. sent12: if the Koranicness occurs then the fact that the dodging dimorphism occurs but the dodging Lawrence does not occur does not hold. sent13: the recruiting Plautus and the praetorianness happens. sent14: that the aspersion happens and the Koranicness happens is caused by that the commandment does not occur. sent15: the littleness does not occur if the fact that the inconsiderableness does not occur and the heaves does not occur is not correct. sent16: that the dodging Lawrence does not occur leads to that both the recruiting Ur and the speaking Maracaibo occurs. sent17: if the fact that the inconsiderableness happens hold then that not the littleness but the heaves happens does not hold. sent18: the swooping erythroderma does not occur if that both the non-littleness and the heaving occurs does not hold. sent19: the recruiting Ur does not occur if that the dodging dimorphism but not the dodging Lawrence happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the ministerialness does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the recruiting reproducibility occurs. sent2: if the fact that the coo but not the hooking happens is not correct then the recruiting winning occurs. sent3: the ministerialness is prevented by that the solarizing occurs and the recruiting winning occurs. sent4: both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur. sent5: the purring does not occur.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the ministerialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recruiting reproducibility occurs. sent2: if the fact that the coo but not the hooking happens is not correct then the recruiting winning occurs. sent3: the ministerialness is prevented by that the solarizing occurs and the recruiting winning occurs. sent4: both the solarizing and the feat occurs if the purring does not occur. sent5: the purring does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the solarizing and the feat happens.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the solarizing happens is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the popper is a kind of a TLC and it is an appearance.

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

sent1: that the popper is a TLC is right if the honoree is valvular. sent2: the honoree is methodological and/or it is valvular if the fact that it does not recruit abiotrophy hold. sent3: if the Cathaya does not recruit Stuttgart the cumulonimbus is a canyon. sent4: the popper does not recruit abiotrophy if the honoree recruit abiotrophy. sent5: if that something does not recruit ERA and is pilar is not correct it does recruit traveled. sent6: everything dodges laryngismus and it is biogeographic. sent7: the popper is a tributyrin. sent8: everything is a kind of an appearance that is a tributyrin. sent9: everything is a tributyrin. sent10: the fact that the Iowan does not recruit ERA and is pilar is not true if it is telegraphic. sent11: something does not recruit Stuttgart if it recruits reduplication. sent12: if the fact that something is sociolinguistic is true then it recruits reduplication. sent13: if the Iowan recruits traveled then the Cathaya is sociolinguistic. sent14: the fact that the Iowan is a Hellman but it is non-telegraphic is incorrect. sent15: the popper is a kind of a TLC if the honoree is methodological. sent16: if the fact that the Iowan is a kind of a Hellman but it is not telegraphic is not correct it is not telegraphic. sent17: The abiotrophy does not recruit honoree. sent18: if something does not recruit abiotrophy that it is a TLC and is an appearance is false.

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

the fact that the popper is a TLC and it is an appearance does not hold.

¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the popper is a kind of a TLC and it is an appearance. ; $context$ = sent1: that the popper is a TLC is right if the honoree is valvular. sent2: the honoree is methodological and/or it is valvular if the fact that it does not recruit abiotrophy hold. sent3: if the Cathaya does not recruit Stuttgart the cumulonimbus is a canyon. sent4: the popper does not recruit abiotrophy if the honoree recruit abiotrophy. sent5: if that something does not recruit ERA and is pilar is not correct it does recruit traveled. sent6: everything dodges laryngismus and it is biogeographic. sent7: the popper is a tributyrin. sent8: everything is a kind of an appearance that is a tributyrin. sent9: everything is a tributyrin. sent10: the fact that the Iowan does not recruit ERA and is pilar is not true if it is telegraphic. sent11: something does not recruit Stuttgart if it recruits reduplication. sent12: if the fact that something is sociolinguistic is true then it recruits reduplication. sent13: if the Iowan recruits traveled then the Cathaya is sociolinguistic. sent14: the fact that the Iowan is a Hellman but it is non-telegraphic is incorrect. sent15: the popper is a kind of a TLC if the honoree is methodological. sent16: if the fact that the Iowan is a kind of a Hellman but it is not telegraphic is not correct it is not telegraphic. sent17: The abiotrophy does not recruit honoree. sent18: if something does not recruit abiotrophy that it is a TLC and is an appearance is false. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the popper is an appearance and it is a tributyrin.; int1 -> int2: the popper is an appearance.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not zymotic then the fact that it is not a kind of a freak is not false.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not zymotic the fact that it does freak hold. sent2: if something is not philological it is not a kind of a bugged. sent3: there is something such that if it is not viceregal that it does mutiny is correct. sent4: if something is not pyogenic that it is not a kind of a Albanian is not false. sent5: if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong. sent6: if something is not zymotic then it is a freak. sent7: there exists something such that if it is zymotic then that it does not freak hold.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬{FK}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{EE}x -> {GF}x sent4: (x): ¬{CD}x -> ¬{CJ}x sent5: {B}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent7: (Ex): {B}x -> ¬{C}x

there exists something such that if it is not philological then it is not a bugged.

(Ex): ¬{M}x -> ¬{FK}x

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not zymotic then the fact that it is not a kind of a freak is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not zymotic the fact that it does freak hold. sent2: if something is not philological it is not a kind of a bugged. sent3: there is something such that if it is not viceregal that it does mutiny is correct. sent4: if something is not pyogenic that it is not a kind of a Albanian is not false. sent5: if the soapwort is zymotic that it is not a freak is not wrong. sent6: if something is not zymotic then it is a freak. sent7: there exists something such that if it is zymotic then that it does not freak hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the inaudibleness does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: the recruiting formation happens. sent2: that the inaudibleness occurs is prevented by that the recruiting formation does not occur but the off-lineness occurs. sent3: both the inaudibleness and the recruiting formation happens. sent4: if that the balminess happens but the Wagnerianness does not occur is incorrect then the Wagnerianness occurs. sent5: the recruiting formation does not occur but the off-lineness occurs if the Wagnerianness occurs.

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

the inaudibleness does not occur.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the inaudibleness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recruiting formation happens. sent2: that the inaudibleness occurs is prevented by that the recruiting formation does not occur but the off-lineness occurs. sent3: both the inaudibleness and the recruiting formation happens. sent4: if that the balminess happens but the Wagnerianness does not occur is incorrect then the Wagnerianness occurs. sent5: the recruiting formation does not occur but the off-lineness occurs if the Wagnerianness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the dextrose is not terpsichorean.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean.

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

the fact that the dextrose is terpsichorean is not incorrect.

{B}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is not terpsichorean. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is a Glaswegian is not true. sent2: there exists nothing such that it is a bullshit and a scrapbook. sent3: if that something is Brobdingnagian thing that is a kind of a Taiwanese does not hold it is not a kind of a Taiwanese. sent4: if that something is not Taiwanese is right it is not a ramie and not a binary. sent5: the beat is not terpsichorean. sent6: if there exists something such that that the fact that it does not recruit beat and it is Glaswegian is not false is false then the clearing recruit beat. sent7: if that the beat bullshits and is a scrapbook is not true then the dextrose is not a binary. sent8: something that is not a binary is not terpsichorean. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that that the beat is a kind of a bullshit that is a scrapbook does not hold is correct.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the dextrose is not a binary.; sent8 -> int3: the dextrose is not terpsichorean if it is not a binary.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the sex is a kind of a cecum.

{B}{b}

sent1: if something is licit then it does not dodge touristed or it dodges SLS or both. sent2: if either something is not a copyright or it is a kind of a belemnite or both it is not a copyright. sent3: the SLS does not dodge barred if the pantheist does dodge barred. sent4: the SLS does recruit beeswax. sent5: if that the piezometer does copyright is wrong it is licit. sent6: the bluejacket dodges SLS if there exists something such that it does not dodge touristed and/or it does dodges SLS. sent7: if the SLS does not dodge barred and does not copyright that the piezometer does not copyright is not incorrect. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a C-horizon and it bestows. sent9: the fact that the pantheist dodges barred and/or it is a Potorous is not incorrect. sent10: the sex is a cecum if the spirochete is a kind of a shiftiness. sent11: something that does recruit beeswax either is not a copyright or is a belemnite or both. sent12: if that the pantheist is a Potorous is right then the SLS does not dodge barred.

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

the sex is not a kind of a cecum.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the sex is a kind of a cecum. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is licit then it does not dodge touristed or it dodges SLS or both. sent2: if either something is not a copyright or it is a kind of a belemnite or both it is not a copyright. sent3: the SLS does not dodge barred if the pantheist does dodge barred. sent4: the SLS does recruit beeswax. sent5: if that the piezometer does copyright is wrong it is licit. sent6: the bluejacket dodges SLS if there exists something such that it does not dodge touristed and/or it does dodges SLS. sent7: if the SLS does not dodge barred and does not copyright that the piezometer does not copyright is not incorrect. sent8: there exists nothing such that it is a C-horizon and it bestows. sent9: the fact that the pantheist dodges barred and/or it is a Potorous is not incorrect. sent10: the sex is a cecum if the spirochete is a kind of a shiftiness. sent11: something that does recruit beeswax either is not a copyright or is a belemnite or both. sent12: if that the pantheist is a Potorous is right then the SLS does not dodge barred. ; $proof$ =

sent8 -> int1: the fact that the beeswax is a C-horizon that does bestow is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a C-horizon and it does bestow is not right.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if it is a occiput and it is forgetful it does not swoop bordelaise is not true.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

sent1: the circuit does not swoop bordelaise if it is a kind of a flounder and it inhabits. sent2: there is something such that if it wolfs and it is a kind of a tick it is not indehiscent. sent3: something is not a kind of a pocketcomb if it does swoop bolster and is not non-ductless. sent4: if the bolster does dodge sprig and it is a sorbent it is not a medic. sent5: there exists something such that if it is smaller and it is bridgeable it is not absorbable. sent6: if the settler does swoop sorb and is forgetful then it is not a kind of a tall. sent7: the bolster does not superannuate if the fact that it is a occiput and it is photoelectric is right. sent8: if the garage is both a electromyography and a miller it is not a occiput. sent9: if the bolster is a occiput and forgetful it does swoop bordelaise. sent10: if the bolster is a occiput and forgetful then it does not swoop bordelaise. sent11: that there exists something such that if it is brachiopod a cab it is not photoelectric is correct. sent12: there exists something such that if it does swoop marble and it is a flounder it is not limbic. sent13: the bolster is not a plexor if it is entrepreneurial and it swoops bordelaise. sent14: something that is osseous but not non-photoelectric is not tall. sent15: there is something such that if it is both a occiput and forgetful it does swoop bordelaise. sent16: if something swoops bordelaise and it is a jeer then it does not recruit envy. sent17: there is something such that if it is senatorial and it dodges Xantusiidae it is brachiopod. sent18: there is something such that if it is avifaunal and it does discard then it is not senatorial.

sent1: ({EJ}{ha} & {JG}{ha}) -> ¬{B}{ha} sent2: (Ex): ({U}x & {AE}x) -> ¬{CO}x sent3: (x): ({A}x & {GK}x) -> ¬{EM}x sent4: ({L}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) -> ¬{FS}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({BS}x & {EU}x) -> ¬{AH}x sent6: ({EO}{ao} & {AB}{ao}) -> ¬{JC}{ao} sent7: ({AA}{aa} & {CK}{aa}) -> ¬{AT}{aa} sent8: ({AQ}{bq} & {FB}{bq}) -> ¬{AA}{bq} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({FO}x & {BT}x) -> ¬{CK}x sent12: (Ex): ({ER}x & {EJ}x) -> ¬{J}x sent13: ({HJ}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{BI}{aa} sent14: (x): ({EP}x & {CK}x) -> ¬{JC}x sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: (x): ({B}x & {GO}x) -> ¬{BF}x sent17: (Ex): ({BP}x & {DK}x) -> {FO}x sent18: (Ex): ({Q}x & {EH}x) -> ¬{BP}x

there is something such that if it is osseous and photoelectric it is not a kind of a tall.

(Ex): ({EP}x & {CK}x) -> ¬{JC}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a occiput and it is forgetful it does not swoop bordelaise is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the circuit does not swoop bordelaise if it is a kind of a flounder and it inhabits. sent2: there is something such that if it wolfs and it is a kind of a tick it is not indehiscent. sent3: something is not a kind of a pocketcomb if it does swoop bolster and is not non-ductless. sent4: if the bolster does dodge sprig and it is a sorbent it is not a medic. sent5: there exists something such that if it is smaller and it is bridgeable it is not absorbable. sent6: if the settler does swoop sorb and is forgetful then it is not a kind of a tall. sent7: the bolster does not superannuate if the fact that it is a occiput and it is photoelectric is right. sent8: if the garage is both a electromyography and a miller it is not a occiput. sent9: if the bolster is a occiput and forgetful it does swoop bordelaise. sent10: if the bolster is a occiput and forgetful then it does not swoop bordelaise. sent11: that there exists something such that if it is brachiopod a cab it is not photoelectric is correct. sent12: there exists something such that if it does swoop marble and it is a flounder it is not limbic. sent13: the bolster is not a plexor if it is entrepreneurial and it swoops bordelaise. sent14: something that is osseous but not non-photoelectric is not tall. sent15: there is something such that if it is both a occiput and forgetful it does swoop bordelaise. sent16: if something swoops bordelaise and it is a jeer then it does not recruit envy. sent17: there is something such that if it is senatorial and it dodges Xantusiidae it is brachiopod. sent18: there is something such that if it is avifaunal and it does discard then it is not senatorial. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it is not avionic that it is not a kind of a bluefish and it is not an invertebrate is not right.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: that the cereal is not a bluefish and not invertebrate is incorrect if it is not avionic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not avionic then the fact that it is not a bluefish and it is a kind of an invertebrate does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is avionic the fact that it is both not a bluefish and not invertebrate is not true. sent4: there is something such that if it is not avionic that it is a bluefish but not invertebrate is not correct. sent5: if the cereal is avionic that the fact that it is not a bluefish and is not invertebrate hold is wrong. sent6: that something is non-leptosporangiate and it is not a homing is wrong if it is not a anole.

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

that the litigant is not leptosporangiate and it is not a homing does not hold if it is not a anole.

¬{HM}{ic} -> ¬(¬{DT}{ic} & ¬{HJ}{ic})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not avionic that it is not a kind of a bluefish and it is not an invertebrate is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cereal is not a bluefish and not invertebrate is incorrect if it is not avionic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not avionic then the fact that it is not a bluefish and it is a kind of an invertebrate does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if it is avionic the fact that it is both not a bluefish and not invertebrate is not true. sent4: there is something such that if it is not avionic that it is a bluefish but not invertebrate is not correct. sent5: if the cereal is avionic that the fact that it is not a bluefish and is not invertebrate hold is wrong. sent6: that something is non-leptosporangiate and it is not a homing is wrong if it is not a anole. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if it is a kind of a grasshopper it is not deductive and does not puddle is wrong.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: that there is something such that if it is a footing then it does not stab and it is not a snorkeling is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a grasshopper then the fact that it is not a puddle is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it speaks anachronism then it is adoptive and it does not luff. sent4: if the cerumen is a mammogram it is not insincere and it does not swoop aneuploidy. sent5: that something is not a Hubbard and it is not bimorphemic hold if it is conditional. sent6: the resonance is not deductive and does not puddle if it is a grasshopper. sent7: there exists something such that if it dodges NGF it is not craniometric. sent8: the resonance is not a grasshopper and is a prosthetist if it is a kind of a cockerel.

sent1: (Ex): {BP}x -> (¬{ER}x & ¬{HQ}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent3: (Ex): {EE}x -> ({EU}x & ¬{BH}x) sent4: {T}{fu} -> (¬{GR}{fu} & ¬{IT}{fu}) sent5: (x): {DH}x -> (¬{IL}x & ¬{R}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {CA}x -> ¬{EO}x sent8: {DR}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & {EP}{aa})

if the NGF is conditional it is not a Hubbard and it is not bimorphemic.

{DH}{ap} -> (¬{IL}{ap} & ¬{R}{ap})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a kind of a grasshopper it is not deductive and does not puddle is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that there is something such that if it is a footing then it does not stab and it is not a snorkeling is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a grasshopper then the fact that it is not a puddle is not wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it speaks anachronism then it is adoptive and it does not luff. sent4: if the cerumen is a mammogram it is not insincere and it does not swoop aneuploidy. sent5: that something is not a Hubbard and it is not bimorphemic hold if it is conditional. sent6: the resonance is not deductive and does not puddle if it is a grasshopper. sent7: there exists something such that if it dodges NGF it is not craniometric. sent8: the resonance is not a grasshopper and is a prosthetist if it is a kind of a cockerel. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the iodination is not faecal.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong. sent2: that the vulture is not a inexplicitness and not a Saone is incorrect if it is exodontic. sent3: if that there exists something such that it is not a seigniorage is not false the graft is not a code. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a seigniorage that is faecal is not right. sent5: if there is something such that it is a seigniorage the fact that that the graft does disband and it is faecal is incorrect is correct. sent6: the graft is a seigniorage if the vulture is a kind of a inexplicitness. sent7: the graft does disband if something is both not a rut and not diamantine. sent8: the iodination is not faecal if there exists something such that it does not disband. sent9: the fact that the graft is faecal and it disbands is not right if there is something such that it is a seigniorage. sent10: the vulture is a inexplicitness if the fact that that it is not a kind of a inexplicitness and it is not a Saone is true is false. sent11: the fact that the iodination is a inexplicitness and it does disband does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a seigniorage and does disband is false then the iodination is not faecal. sent13: the vulture is both exodontic and a Petrarch if the buffer is not a PTO. sent14: there is something such that it does dodge candlenut. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rut and it is not diamantine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of an appliance that is squinty is wrong. sent17: something is a kind of a seigniorage that disbands. sent18: if something does dodge candlenut it is faecal.

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

the fact that the iodination is faecal hold.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the iodination is not faecal. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that the fact that it is faecal and it does disband is wrong. sent2: that the vulture is not a inexplicitness and not a Saone is incorrect if it is exodontic. sent3: if that there exists something such that it is not a seigniorage is not false the graft is not a code. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a seigniorage that is faecal is not right. sent5: if there is something such that it is a seigniorage the fact that that the graft does disband and it is faecal is incorrect is correct. sent6: the graft is a seigniorage if the vulture is a kind of a inexplicitness. sent7: the graft does disband if something is both not a rut and not diamantine. sent8: the iodination is not faecal if there exists something such that it does not disband. sent9: the fact that the graft is faecal and it disbands is not right if there is something such that it is a seigniorage. sent10: the vulture is a inexplicitness if the fact that that it is not a kind of a inexplicitness and it is not a Saone is true is false. sent11: the fact that the iodination is a inexplicitness and it does disband does not hold. sent12: if there is something such that that it is a seigniorage and does disband is false then the iodination is not faecal. sent13: the vulture is both exodontic and a Petrarch if the buffer is not a PTO. sent14: there is something such that it does dodge candlenut. sent15: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a rut and it is not diamantine. sent16: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of an appliance that is squinty is wrong. sent17: something is a kind of a seigniorage that disbands. sent18: if something does dodge candlenut it is faecal. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the trophoblasticness or the liquidation or both occurs.

({A} v {B})

sent1: the countershot happens and/or the astronomicness happens. sent2: the supertwister does not occur if not the swooping abiotrophy but the swish happens. sent3: that the elastic or the dodging mercantilism or both occurs is caused by that the supertwister does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the dodging electroencephalogram does not occur is not false then the fact that the valuableness does not occur and the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur is false. sent5: that the swooping Gymnosporangium and the valuable occurs is not right. sent6: not the speaking aquatics but the fuss happens if the fact that the dodging mercantilism does not occur is not wrong. sent7: the liquidation occurs. sent8: if the speaking aquatics does not occur then that the trophoblasticness or the liquidation or both occurs is false. sent9: if the counterfire occurs then the ligature does not occur and the dodging electroencephalogram does not occur. sent10: if the plausibleness does not occur the swish occurs and the lyricness occurs. sent11: if the swish happens then the supertwister does not occur and the swooping abiotrophy happens. sent12: if the fact that both the swooping Gymnosporangium and the valuable happens is not correct the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur. sent13: if the arenaceousness occurs the counterfire occurs. sent14: if the fuss does not occur then the speaking aquatics does not occur and the liquidation does not occur. sent15: the plausibleness does not occur if that the valuable does not occur and the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur is wrong. sent16: the swooping abiotrophy does not occur but the swish happens if the lyricing does not occur. sent17: the dodging mercantilism does not occur and the elasticness does not occur if the fact that the supertwister does not occur is true. sent18: the shuttingness or the dodging electroencephalogram or both occurs.

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

the demographic happens.

{CE}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the trophoblasticness or the liquidation or both occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the countershot happens and/or the astronomicness happens. sent2: the supertwister does not occur if not the swooping abiotrophy but the swish happens. sent3: that the elastic or the dodging mercantilism or both occurs is caused by that the supertwister does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the dodging electroencephalogram does not occur is not false then the fact that the valuableness does not occur and the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur is false. sent5: that the swooping Gymnosporangium and the valuable occurs is not right. sent6: not the speaking aquatics but the fuss happens if the fact that the dodging mercantilism does not occur is not wrong. sent7: the liquidation occurs. sent8: if the speaking aquatics does not occur then that the trophoblasticness or the liquidation or both occurs is false. sent9: if the counterfire occurs then the ligature does not occur and the dodging electroencephalogram does not occur. sent10: if the plausibleness does not occur the swish occurs and the lyricness occurs. sent11: if the swish happens then the supertwister does not occur and the swooping abiotrophy happens. sent12: if the fact that both the swooping Gymnosporangium and the valuable happens is not correct the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur. sent13: if the arenaceousness occurs the counterfire occurs. sent14: if the fuss does not occur then the speaking aquatics does not occur and the liquidation does not occur. sent15: the plausibleness does not occur if that the valuable does not occur and the swooping Gymnosporangium does not occur is wrong. sent16: the swooping abiotrophy does not occur but the swish happens if the lyricing does not occur. sent17: the dodging mercantilism does not occur and the elasticness does not occur if the fact that the supertwister does not occur is true. sent18: the shuttingness or the dodging electroencephalogram or both occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that it is not an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus does not hold.

¬((Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x))

sent1: the warehouse is not a kind of an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus if something is a sourwood. sent2: there is something such that it does not incline. sent3: that something is a sourwood that does not dodge ranch does not hold if it is not an elite. sent4: something does not swoop midbrain and it is not propagandist. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a sourwood and does not dodge ranch does not hold that it dodge ranch is not false. sent6: if something is a sourwood the warehouse is not a Fuscoboletinus. sent7: something recruits district and does not dodge taxonomist. sent8: the warehouse is not Cameroonian and is not a lieutenant if there is something such that that it is an elite is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood. sent10: something is an elite but not a Fuscoboletinus. sent11: the warehouse is not appellate and is not a Fuscoboletinus.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{BA}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{HP}x) sent4: (Ex): (¬{IT}x & ¬{JJ}x) sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{HP}x) -> {HP}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AQ}x & ¬{CO}x) sent8: (x): {B}x -> (¬{IL}{a} & ¬{IN}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (Ex): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent11: (¬{FA}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

there exists something such that it dodges ranch.

(Ex): {HP}x

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it is not an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the warehouse is not a kind of an elite and it is not a kind of a Fuscoboletinus if something is a sourwood. sent2: there is something such that it does not incline. sent3: that something is a sourwood that does not dodge ranch does not hold if it is not an elite. sent4: something does not swoop midbrain and it is not propagandist. sent5: if the fact that something is a kind of a sourwood and does not dodge ranch does not hold that it dodge ranch is not false. sent6: if something is a sourwood the warehouse is not a Fuscoboletinus. sent7: something recruits district and does not dodge taxonomist. sent8: the warehouse is not Cameroonian and is not a lieutenant if there is something such that that it is an elite is not wrong. sent9: there is something such that it is a kind of a sourwood. sent10: something is an elite but not a Fuscoboletinus. sent11: the warehouse is not appellate and is not a Fuscoboletinus. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the warehouse is not an elite and not a Fuscoboletinus.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur.

(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens.

sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: ¬({B} & {HC}) -> ¬{HC} sent3: ¬{AF} sent4: {A} -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬(¬{DQ} & ¬{HN}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: {HJ} sent10: {DP}

the recruiting huisache does not occur.

¬{HC}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness happens is false if the jurisprudentialness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the Bosnianness and the recruiting huisache occurs does not hold then the recruiting huisache does not occur. sent3: the inflection does not occur. sent4: if the jurisprudentialness happens the Bosnianness occurs. sent5: the Bosnianness does not occur if that that the non-Texanness and the non-fossilness occurs hold does not hold. sent6: the fact that the nonenzymaticness does not occur and the curbing does not occur is not right. sent7: the jurisprudentialness happens. sent8: the fact that both the non-Texanness and the fossilness occurs does not hold. sent9: the striating occurs. sent10: the noncellularness happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Texan does not occur and the fossil does not occur is incorrect.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Bosnianness does not occur.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the Bosnianness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct.

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

that the expanse is not estrous and/or it is a Phanerozoic hold.

(¬{D}{b} v {C}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the precinct is not estrous is not wrong then that the expanse either is not a manatee or is estrous or both does not hold. sent2: that the precinct is not a Phanerozoic or it is a manatee or both is not true if the expanse is not a kind of a manatee. sent3: that something is not a microflora but it is a manatee is not right if that it is not butyric hold. sent4: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora if it is not a manatee. sent5: the expanse is not a praya if it is not a microflora. sent6: the expanse is estrous. sent7: the precinct is not a manatee. sent8: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic then the expanse is estrous. sent9: if something is not a microflora then it is not a Phanerozoic. sent10: if the precinct is not a Phanerozoic the fact that that the expanse is not estrous or is a Phanerozoic or both is incorrect is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the precinct is not a kind of a microflora.; sent9 -> int2: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic if it is not a microflora.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the precinct is not a Phanerozoic.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive.

({A}{c} v ¬{C}{c})

sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the tropic is over-the-counter and/or it is not nonrepetitive. ; $context$ = sent1: that the molding is Noachian and/or not Bhutanese does not hold. sent2: either the tropic is over-the-counter or it is not nonrepetitive or both if the celibate is not a kind of a dialogue. sent3: the celibate is not a dialogue if the fact that the molding is Noachian and/or not a Bhutanese is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the celibate is not a dialogue.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does not dodge muezzin is false then it is not exodontic.

(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: the Salvadoran is not exodontic if that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin is not wrong. sent2: that if the fact that something does not recruit mercantilism and it is not bronchiolar is false then it is not Minoan is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a Tokyo and it does not peal does not hold then it is not a Weimar. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the Salvadoran does recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin hold is not true it is not exodontic. sent5: if that the oilcan is not a flourish and it does not recruit mercantilism is incorrect it is not a skepful. sent6: if the Salvadoran dodges muezzin it is not exodontic. sent7: that the Salvadoran is not exodontic is not wrong if that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does not dodge muezzin is not true. sent8: there is something such that if that it does not annoy and does not swoop Chicago does not hold then it does not swoop cytostome. sent9: there is something such that if it does dodge muezzin it is not exodontic. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does dodge muezzin does not hold that it is not exodontic is correct. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin it is not exodontic. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin does not hold then the fact that it is exodontic is not false. sent13: the Salvadoran is exodontic if that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it recruits mercantilism then it is not exodontic. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that it does not round and does not swoop phenotype is not true it is not hemolytic. sent16: the Salvadoran is not a dampener if that it does not recruit Xantusiidae and it does not dodge defibrillation does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that if the fact that it recruits mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin is not true it is non-exodontic.

sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{EE}x) -> ¬{G}x sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{FI}x & ¬{FU}x) -> ¬{BR}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{GD}{ef} & ¬{AA}{ef}) -> ¬{EU}{ef} sent6: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{I}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{CS}x sent9: (Ex): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{BK}x & ¬{R}x) -> ¬{FA}x sent16: ¬(¬{CA}{aa} & ¬{FH}{aa}) -> ¬{CQ}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

if the fact that the cottonwick does not recruit mercantilism and is not bronchiolar does not hold it is not a Minoan.

¬(¬{AA}{et} & ¬{EE}{et}) -> ¬{G}{et}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does not dodge muezzin is false then it is not exodontic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Salvadoran is not exodontic if that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin is not wrong. sent2: that if the fact that something does not recruit mercantilism and it is not bronchiolar is false then it is not Minoan is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a Tokyo and it does not peal does not hold then it is not a Weimar. sent4: if the fact that the fact that the Salvadoran does recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin hold is not true it is not exodontic. sent5: if that the oilcan is not a flourish and it does not recruit mercantilism is incorrect it is not a skepful. sent6: if the Salvadoran dodges muezzin it is not exodontic. sent7: that the Salvadoran is not exodontic is not wrong if that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does not dodge muezzin is not true. sent8: there is something such that if that it does not annoy and does not swoop Chicago does not hold then it does not swoop cytostome. sent9: there is something such that if it does dodge muezzin it is not exodontic. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recruit mercantilism and it does dodge muezzin does not hold that it is not exodontic is correct. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin it is not exodontic. sent12: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin does not hold then the fact that it is exodontic is not false. sent13: the Salvadoran is exodontic if that it does not recruit mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it recruits mercantilism then it is not exodontic. sent15: there is something such that if the fact that it does not round and does not swoop phenotype is not true it is not hemolytic. sent16: the Salvadoran is not a dampener if that it does not recruit Xantusiidae and it does not dodge defibrillation does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that if the fact that it recruits mercantilism and does not dodge muezzin is not true it is non-exodontic. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale.

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

the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a pastorale does not hold.

¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stearin dodges transplant and it is a pastorale is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not dodge haymow that it does dodge osteopathy and it elegizes is not correct. sent2: the speed does dodge polyptoton and grits. sent3: the ganoin is not sinkable and does bring. sent4: if that the haymow is a sky but it is not unsinkable is not wrong the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent5: the ganoin is a kind of a pastorale. sent6: the fact that the stearin is a sky and it dodges transplant is true. sent7: the ganoin is a kind of a sky. sent8: the haymow is a sky if there exists something such that it is a December and/or not a salvo. sent9: if the fact that that the haymow dodges osteopathy and it does elegize is not false is not correct then it is not a kind of a crocolite. sent10: something is sinkable thing that does not bring if it is not a crocolite. sent11: that either the coralroot is a December or it is not a salvo or both hold. sent12: the haymow does not dodge haymow if it is a LASIK and it is a kind of a biennial. sent13: the diaper does speak decagon and does dodge transplant. sent14: the fact that the stearin does dodge transplant and it is a kind of a pastorale is false if the ganoin is not unsinkable. sent15: if the ganoin brings the stearin is a pastorale. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the ganoin brings.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the stearin is a pastorale.; sent6 -> int3: the stearin dodges transplant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the apple is mayoral.

{C}{b}

sent1: the macedoine is impure. sent2: the combatant is mayoral. sent3: the Laconian is a kind of a workpiece and is impure. sent4: the ouzo is mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is impure is not incorrect. sent6: something is a kind of a thorax and is impure if that it is not a quoits is not false. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not non-xeric and not pregnant. sent8: the apple is impure. sent9: the macedoine is mayoral. sent10: something is not a quoits if the fact that it is a quoits and it does animate is not true. sent11: there is something such that it is a boulder. sent12: the macedoine is mayoral if there exists something such that it is a kind of impure thing that is a kind of a quoits. sent13: the apple is a copilot. sent14: the apple is behavioral. sent15: something does compact. sent16: the macedoine does swoop logogram and it purses. sent17: everything is a toast. sent18: there exists something such that it is a WAC. sent19: the macedoine is a quoits. sent20: there is something such that it is a kind of a quoits. sent21: if there is something such that that it is a kind of mayoral thing that is a quoits is true then the apple is impure.

sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {C}{ge} sent3: ({DD}{hn} & {A}{hn}) sent4: {C}{fh} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({L}x & {A}x) sent7: (Ex): ({HL}x & {GG}x) sent8: {A}{b} sent9: {C}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (Ex): {FQ}x sent12: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent13: {DG}{b} sent14: {IE}{b} sent15: (Ex): {GL}x sent16: ({GE}{a} & {BU}{a}) sent17: (x): {AO}x sent18: (Ex): {JG}x sent19: {B}{a} sent20: (Ex): {B}x sent21: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> {A}{b}

something is a kind of a toast that is a thorax.

(Ex): ({AO}x & {L}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the apple is mayoral. ; $context$ = sent1: the macedoine is impure. sent2: the combatant is mayoral. sent3: the Laconian is a kind of a workpiece and is impure. sent4: the ouzo is mayoral. sent5: there exists something such that the fact that it is impure is not incorrect. sent6: something is a kind of a thorax and is impure if that it is not a quoits is not false. sent7: there exists something such that it is both not non-xeric and not pregnant. sent8: the apple is impure. sent9: the macedoine is mayoral. sent10: something is not a quoits if the fact that it is a quoits and it does animate is not true. sent11: there is something such that it is a boulder. sent12: the macedoine is mayoral if there exists something such that it is a kind of impure thing that is a kind of a quoits. sent13: the apple is a copilot. sent14: the apple is behavioral. sent15: something does compact. sent16: the macedoine does swoop logogram and it purses. sent17: everything is a toast. sent18: there exists something such that it is a WAC. sent19: the macedoine is a quoits. sent20: there is something such that it is a kind of a quoits. sent21: if there is something such that that it is a kind of mayoral thing that is a quoits is true then the apple is impure. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent19 -> int1: the macedoine is impure and it is a kind of a quoits.; int1 -> int2: the fact that there is something such that it is impure and it is a quoits is not false.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs.

sent1: ({CO} & {CF}) sent2: ¬{CE} -> {IF} sent3: ¬{AB} -> {AQ} sent4: ¬{JK} sent5: ¬{HS} sent6: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ({DN} & {T}) sent9: ¬{B} -> {C} sent10: ¬{BI} -> ({R} & {GK}) sent11: ¬{F} sent12: ¬{CJ} sent13: ({GM} & {HB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that that the galacticness occurs and the tragedy happens is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the retraction occurs and the breeziness occurs. sent2: if the recruiting hee-haw does not occur the fact that the metallic happens hold. sent3: if the necessariness does not occur then the fact that the speaking Dromaeosauridae occurs is true. sent4: the dodging Xenopodidae does not occur. sent5: the inversion does not occur. sent6: the swooping cereal does not occur and the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur. sent7: if that the denotativeness does not occur is not incorrect both the tragedy and the placation happens. sent8: the amphitheatricness happens and the vulvectomy occurs. sent9: that the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur prevents the non-galacticness. sent10: that the inputting does not occur causes that the cuckoldry happens and the spiking occurs. sent11: the denotativeness does not occur. sent12: the comber does not occur. sent13: both the punching and the creating occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: the dodging Tachyglossidae does not occur.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the galacticness happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int3: both the tragedy and the placation happens.; int3 -> int4: the tragedy occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that if it does recruit bailee and is not a meticulousness then it is a kind of a foreshore is false.

¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: the apple is a string if it is a Nantucket and it is a meticulousness. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Chesterton and a gazelle it chafes. sent3: if the apple does recruit bailee and is not a meticulousness then it is a foreshore. sent4: there exists something such that if it dodges central and is a kind of a Petrarch it is a inanity. sent5: something is carposporic if it is a suborder that is not mechanistic. sent6: if the apple does recruit eclecticism and it does dodge thimblerig then it recruits bailee. sent7: there exists something such that if it dodges apple and it governs then that it is Lincolnesque hold. sent8: if the apple does recruit bailee and is a meticulousness then it is a kind of a foreshore. sent9: there exists something such that if it recruits bailee and is a meticulousness it is a foreshore. sent10: there is something such that if it is apocrine and non-genotypical then it is peaceable.

sent1: ({JF}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {HN}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({P}x & {FK}x) -> {CR}x sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({CH}x & {BL}x) -> {DQ}x sent5: (x): ({CU}x & ¬{GT}x) -> {AU}x sent6: ({DN}{aa} & {DI}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ({ER}x & {AI}x) -> {ED}x sent8: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ({F}x & ¬{HC}x) -> {HI}x

there exists something such that if it is a suborder and is not mechanistic then it is carposporic.

(Ex): ({CU}x & ¬{GT}x) -> {AU}x

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does recruit bailee and is not a meticulousness then it is a kind of a foreshore is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the apple is a string if it is a Nantucket and it is a meticulousness. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Chesterton and a gazelle it chafes. sent3: if the apple does recruit bailee and is not a meticulousness then it is a foreshore. sent4: there exists something such that if it dodges central and is a kind of a Petrarch it is a inanity. sent5: something is carposporic if it is a suborder that is not mechanistic. sent6: if the apple does recruit eclecticism and it does dodge thimblerig then it recruits bailee. sent7: there exists something such that if it dodges apple and it governs then that it is Lincolnesque hold. sent8: if the apple does recruit bailee and is a meticulousness then it is a kind of a foreshore. sent9: there exists something such that if it recruits bailee and is a meticulousness it is a foreshore. sent10: there is something such that if it is apocrine and non-genotypical then it is peaceable. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

both the non-cheliceralness and the underageness happens.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: that the tracing does not occur is brought about by the dodging gamete or that the dodging setter does not occur or both. sent2: the conversing and the confession occurs if the macrencephalicness does not occur. sent3: that the conversing does not occur causes that the underageness occurs and the cheliceralness happens. sent4: the non-macrencephalicness leads to that the conversing does not occur and the confession does not occur. sent5: the swooping videocassette happens and the swooping redetermination occurs if the tracing does not occur. sent6: that the taste and the Citation happens results in that the cheliceralness does not occur. sent7: the underageness happens. sent8: the tasting occurs. sent9: the fact that the leadership and the swooping redetermination happens does not hold if the swooping videocassette does not occur. sent10: the retention happens. sent11: the electricalness does not occur if that either the Citation does not occur or the taste happens or both is not right. sent12: the fact that the cheliceralness does not occur but the underageness happens is false if the taste does not occur. sent13: if the swooping redetermination happens then the leadership but not the macrencephalicness occurs. sent14: the long-chainness happens.

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

that the electricalness does not occur is not wrong.

¬{HC}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = both the non-cheliceralness and the underageness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the tracing does not occur is brought about by the dodging gamete or that the dodging setter does not occur or both. sent2: the conversing and the confession occurs if the macrencephalicness does not occur. sent3: that the conversing does not occur causes that the underageness occurs and the cheliceralness happens. sent4: the non-macrencephalicness leads to that the conversing does not occur and the confession does not occur. sent5: the swooping videocassette happens and the swooping redetermination occurs if the tracing does not occur. sent6: that the taste and the Citation happens results in that the cheliceralness does not occur. sent7: the underageness happens. sent8: the tasting occurs. sent9: the fact that the leadership and the swooping redetermination happens does not hold if the swooping videocassette does not occur. sent10: the retention happens. sent11: the electricalness does not occur if that either the Citation does not occur or the taste happens or both is not right. sent12: the fact that the cheliceralness does not occur but the underageness happens is false if the taste does not occur. sent13: if the swooping redetermination happens then the leadership but not the macrencephalicness occurs. sent14: the long-chainness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the falcon does dodge Homer.

{C}{b}

sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true.

sent1: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) -> {F}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) sent4: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: ¬{I}{e} -> ({H}{d} v {F}{d}) sent8: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{D}{b} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{jg} sent10: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{K}{f} -> {H}{f} sent12: {H}{d} -> {F}{c} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent14: ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{E}{d} sent15: ¬({I}{g} & ¬{J}{g}) sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent17: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {C}x sent18: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent19: ¬{AA}{cd} sent20: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent21: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent22: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x v ¬{M}x) sent23: (Ex): {D}x sent24: {H}{f} -> ({E}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent25: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{G}x)

the heliometer is dizygotic.

{A}{jg}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the falcon does dodge Homer. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian is wrong then the Homer is a tenrec. sent2: something that is not a kind of a hare and dodges Homer is a bailor. sent3: everything does dodge Sorbian and it does recruit falcon. sent4: the manikin is not invulnerable if there exists something such that it does dodge Sorbian. sent5: if the Pneumovax is not a materialist then the melosa is dizygotic and it is a bailor. sent6: the falcon is not a kind of a bailor if that the melosa does hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent7: if the manikin is not invulnerable the Homer is a desperation and/or it is a tenrec. sent8: if the Pneumovax does not dodge longbowman the falcon is not a kind of a materialist. sent9: the heliometer is dizygotic if the melosa is a kind of a bailor. sent10: something is not a materialist. sent11: the customer is a desperation if it does not recruit falcon. sent12: the fact that if the Homer is a desperation then the Pneumovax is a kind of a tenrec is not false. sent13: that the falcon is dizygotic is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a materialist. sent14: the Homer does not dodge longbowman if the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not a Haitian. sent15: the fact that the semiprofessional is invulnerable but it does not dodge Sorbian does not hold. sent16: if the falcon is not a materialist the melosa is a bailor and it dodges Homer. sent17: if something is not a kind of a bailor but it is dizygotic then it dodges Homer. sent18: the falcon is not a bailor if the melosa is not a kind of a hare. sent19: the reveler is not a hare. sent20: the fact that the melosa is a hare and it is a kind of an interstate is incorrect. sent21: if that something does dodge longbowman and is not a Haitian is not true then it does not dodge longbowman. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it does not swoop Sutherland or it does not dodge weepiness or both does not hold. sent23: there is something such that it is a materialist. sent24: if the customer is a desperation then the manikin does dodge longbowman but it is not Haitian. sent25: if something is a tenrec then the fact that it dodges longbowman and is not Haitian is not true. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent20 -> int1: the falcon is not a bailor.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the falcon is dizygotic is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic.; sent17 -> int4: if the falcon is not a bailor but it is dizygotic the fact that it dodges Homer is right.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

something is avirulent.

(Ex): {C}x

sent1: the neoclassicist is not a densitometry. sent2: if something is not a densitometry and it is not a pleat it is avirulent. sent3: the neoclassicist does not swoop semiprofessional and it is not a OPCW. sent4: the nonmember is not a kind of a densitometry. sent5: there exists something such that it occults. sent6: if something is evangelical it dodges central. sent7: there is something such that it is cacodylic. sent8: that something is a densitometry that is not a pleat is not true if that it does dodge central is right. sent9: if the rappee does not pleat and it does not swoop Gymnosporangium it is a kind of a lapidary.

sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent3: (¬{CE}{a} & ¬{HO}{a}) sent4: ¬{A}{cc} sent5: (Ex): {FN}x sent6: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent7: (Ex): {G}x sent8: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent9: (¬{B}{fi} & ¬{DK}{fi}) -> {CA}{fi}

the semiprofessional is not avirulent.

¬{C}{ej}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = something is avirulent. ; $context$ = sent1: the neoclassicist is not a densitometry. sent2: if something is not a densitometry and it is not a pleat it is avirulent. sent3: the neoclassicist does not swoop semiprofessional and it is not a OPCW. sent4: the nonmember is not a kind of a densitometry. sent5: there exists something such that it occults. sent6: if something is evangelical it dodges central. sent7: there is something such that it is cacodylic. sent8: that something is a densitometry that is not a pleat is not true if that it does dodge central is right. sent9: if the rappee does not pleat and it does not swoop Gymnosporangium it is a kind of a lapidary. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: that the neoclassicist is avirulent is not wrong if it is not a densitometry and it is not a pleat.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

either the matricide does not occur or the gauntlet happens or both.

(¬{C} v {D})

sent1: the refocusing occurs. sent2: the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs.

sent1: {B} sent2: {A} -> ¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the matricide does not occur or the gauntlet happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the refocusing occurs. sent2: the matricide does not occur if the recruiting humin occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the firestorm does not occur is right.

¬{D}

sent1: the fact that the filling and the unjustness occurs if the amputation does not occur hold. sent2: the swooping quetzal happens if the postnatalness happens. sent3: that the bludgeoning and the dodging climacteric occurs is brought about by that the recruiting fieriness does not occur. sent4: the dodging climacteric occurs. sent5: if the fact that that the recruiting chondrichthian does not occur and the recruiting canal does not occur is not incorrect is false the fluoroscopy does not occur. sent6: if the recruiting fieriness does not occur then that the recruiting canal and the recruiting chondrichthian occurs is incorrect. sent7: the dodging climacteric and the unjustness happens. sent8: that both the amputation and the unjustness happens prevents that the firestorm occurs. sent9: the incendiary and the jitteriness occurs. sent10: that the unjustness and the amputation happens is incorrect if the fluoroscopy does not occur. sent11: the fluoroscopy happens. sent12: if the fact that the postnatalness does not occur but the clipping happens does not hold the postnatalness happens. sent13: if the fluoroscopy does not occur the amputation does not occur and the firestorm does not occur. sent14: that the recruiting chondrichthian does not occur and the recruiting canal does not occur is not correct if the swooping quetzal happens. sent15: if the fact that the dodging climacteric does not occur is correct the firestorm happens. sent16: that that both the non-postnatalness and the clipping occurs does not hold if the recruiting Melkite does not occur is not incorrect.

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

the filling and the bludgeoning happens.

({CR} & {EI})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the firestorm does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the filling and the unjustness occurs if the amputation does not occur hold. sent2: the swooping quetzal happens if the postnatalness happens. sent3: that the bludgeoning and the dodging climacteric occurs is brought about by that the recruiting fieriness does not occur. sent4: the dodging climacteric occurs. sent5: if the fact that that the recruiting chondrichthian does not occur and the recruiting canal does not occur is not incorrect is false the fluoroscopy does not occur. sent6: if the recruiting fieriness does not occur then that the recruiting canal and the recruiting chondrichthian occurs is incorrect. sent7: the dodging climacteric and the unjustness happens. sent8: that both the amputation and the unjustness happens prevents that the firestorm occurs. sent9: the incendiary and the jitteriness occurs. sent10: that the unjustness and the amputation happens is incorrect if the fluoroscopy does not occur. sent11: the fluoroscopy happens. sent12: if the fact that the postnatalness does not occur but the clipping happens does not hold the postnatalness happens. sent13: if the fluoroscopy does not occur the amputation does not occur and the firestorm does not occur. sent14: that the recruiting chondrichthian does not occur and the recruiting canal does not occur is not correct if the swooping quetzal happens. sent15: if the fact that the dodging climacteric does not occur is correct the firestorm happens. sent16: that that both the non-postnatalness and the clipping occurs does not hold if the recruiting Melkite does not occur is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> int1: the unjustness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if it is not a Olympian then the fact that it is biomedical and it does not swoop gnome is incorrect is not true.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: if something is not a tyrothricin then that it does service and it is not a reorientation is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Olympian that it is biomedical and does not swoop gnome is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the sparkler is biomedical and it swoops gnome is not correct if it is not a Olympian. sent4: if the sparkler is not a souring then the fact that it is biomedical and it is not lobar is true. sent5: the fact that the sparkler is biomedical thing that does not swoop gnome is not true if it is a Olympian. sent6: if the fact that something is not a cat's-ear hold the fact that it is a Mercer and does not swoop gnome is wrong. sent7: if the sparkler is not a Olympian the fact that it is a kind of biomedical thing that does not swoop gnome does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a Olympian it is biomedical and does not swoop gnome. sent9: the fact that the sparkler services but it is not a Mercer is not correct if it is not a Olympian. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a self-service then that it is a kind of a Catalan and it is not a assignation does not hold. sent11: the sparkler is biomedical and does not swoop gnome if it is not Olympian. sent12: there is something such that if it is not Olympian that it is a kind of biomedical thing that swoops gnome is incorrect. sent13: if the beeswax does not swoop tile then the fact that it swoops alcoholic and it is not an advisability is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it is not iliac then the fact that it dodges hyponym and it does swoop sparkler is not correct. sent15: that something is both a shadow and not a rate does not hold if it is not a Roswell.

sent1: (x): ¬{HK}x -> ¬({EA}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{GL}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{DN}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{FU}x -> ¬({Q}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({EA}{aa} & ¬{Q}{aa}) sent10: (Ex): {EO}x -> ¬({BL}x & ¬{GQ}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: ¬{EC}{fd} -> ¬({HL}{fd} & ¬{IS}{fd}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{JC}x -> ¬({GS}x & {DM}x) sent15: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ¬({HT}x & ¬{ID}x)

there exists something such that if it is not a tyrothricin then the fact that it is a service and it is not a reorientation is not true.

(Ex): ¬{HK}x -> ¬({EA}x & ¬{C}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a Olympian then the fact that it is biomedical and it does not swoop gnome is incorrect is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a tyrothricin then that it does service and it is not a reorientation is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Olympian that it is biomedical and does not swoop gnome is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the sparkler is biomedical and it swoops gnome is not correct if it is not a Olympian. sent4: if the sparkler is not a souring then the fact that it is biomedical and it is not lobar is true. sent5: the fact that the sparkler is biomedical thing that does not swoop gnome is not true if it is a Olympian. sent6: if the fact that something is not a cat's-ear hold the fact that it is a Mercer and does not swoop gnome is wrong. sent7: if the sparkler is not a Olympian the fact that it is a kind of biomedical thing that does not swoop gnome does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a Olympian it is biomedical and does not swoop gnome. sent9: the fact that the sparkler services but it is not a Mercer is not correct if it is not a Olympian. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a self-service then that it is a kind of a Catalan and it is not a assignation does not hold. sent11: the sparkler is biomedical and does not swoop gnome if it is not Olympian. sent12: there is something such that if it is not Olympian that it is a kind of biomedical thing that swoops gnome is incorrect. sent13: if the beeswax does not swoop tile then the fact that it swoops alcoholic and it is not an advisability is not correct. sent14: there is something such that if it is not iliac then the fact that it dodges hyponym and it does swoop sparkler is not correct. sent15: that something is both a shadow and not a rate does not hold if it is not a Roswell. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the butt does not swoop cosmetic.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: there is something such that it is not costive. sent2: the lineman is not a rind. sent3: the lineman is not costive if something that does not recruit Synentognathi does not swoop cosmetic. sent4: a coal swoops cosmetic. sent5: that the lineman does not recruit Synentognathi is not incorrect if something does not swoop cosmetic and is not costive. sent6: that the butt is a kind of non-liliaceous thing that is an insolvency is not right. sent7: if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is not costive then the butt does not swoop cosmetic. sent8: the butt does not swoop cosmetic if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is costive. sent9: something does recruit Synentognathi but it is not costive. sent10: if the warthog does not swoop disquieting then it is liliaceous but not a Rhinobatidae. sent11: the butt is not a crumpet and it is not a Bathyergidae. sent12: the lineman is not costive.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent2: ¬{BQ}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent6: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {CU}{a}) sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent8: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent11: (¬{IL}{a} & ¬{CF}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{aa}

the laryngopharynx is not a kind of an insolvency and it does not swoop Hargeisa.

(¬{CU}{ae} & ¬{DT}{ae})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the butt does not swoop cosmetic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not costive. sent2: the lineman is not a rind. sent3: the lineman is not costive if something that does not recruit Synentognathi does not swoop cosmetic. sent4: a coal swoops cosmetic. sent5: that the lineman does not recruit Synentognathi is not incorrect if something does not swoop cosmetic and is not costive. sent6: that the butt is a kind of non-liliaceous thing that is an insolvency is not right. sent7: if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is not costive then the butt does not swoop cosmetic. sent8: the butt does not swoop cosmetic if something that does not recruit Synentognathi is costive. sent9: something does recruit Synentognathi but it is not costive. sent10: if the warthog does not swoop disquieting then it is liliaceous but not a Rhinobatidae. sent11: the butt is not a crumpet and it is not a Bathyergidae. sent12: the lineman is not costive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that it swoops monetarism or it does not dodge 1870s or both.

(Ex): ({A}x v ¬{B}x)

sent1: the courlan is not abiogenetic. sent2: the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a deaf or it does not speak chinked or both. sent4: the zinc hums if there is something such that the fact that it is a Key and/or is not strategics is not right. sent5: The 1870s does not dodge courlan. sent6: the slippage does swoop monetarism if the scraper swoop monetarism. sent7: the fact that everything recruits stint is true. sent8: the fact that the slippage does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct if that it does swoop monetarism hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct that the courlan does not speaks Humulus hold. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it subjects and it is a huisache does not hold the parget untunes. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a Key or it is not strategics or both is incorrect if that it does recruit stint is not incorrect. sent12: if the parget untunes then the scraper swoops monetarism. sent13: there is something such that it does swoop monetarism and/or it does dodge 1870s.

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

the courlan does not speak Humulus.

¬{DN}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it swoops monetarism or it does not dodge 1870s or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the courlan is not abiogenetic. sent2: the courlan either does swoop monetarism or does dodge 1870s or both. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a deaf or it does not speak chinked or both. sent4: the zinc hums if there is something such that the fact that it is a Key and/or is not strategics is not right. sent5: The 1870s does not dodge courlan. sent6: the slippage does swoop monetarism if the scraper swoop monetarism. sent7: the fact that everything recruits stint is true. sent8: the fact that the slippage does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct if that it does swoop monetarism hold. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not dodge 1870s and speaks Humulus is not correct that the courlan does not speaks Humulus hold. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it subjects and it is a huisache does not hold the parget untunes. sent11: the fact that something is a kind of a Key or it is not strategics or both is incorrect if that it does recruit stint is not incorrect. sent12: if the parget untunes then the scraper swoops monetarism. sent13: there is something such that it does swoop monetarism and/or it does dodge 1870s. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if the fact that it does not dodge arborist is not wrong that it is both not a mandrill and a fetology is false.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: the redoubt is not a mandrill and is a fetology if it does not dodge arborist. sent2: if the gemma is not a Carew then the fact that it does not dodge backswimmer and it is a traumatophobia is not true. sent3: there is something such that if it dodges arborist then the fact that it is not a kind of a mandrill and it is a kind of a fetology is not true. sent4: that the redoubt is not a kind of a mandrill but it is a fetology is not true if it dodges arborist. sent5: if something is not a Huxley then that it is not an apple and it speaks redoubt is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a push that it does not jell and is not scented is not true. sent7: if the workbook is not a Irish the fact that it is not universalistic and it nuzzles does not hold. sent8: if the redoubt is not a kind of a latrine then the fact that it is not a kind of a Haematopodidae and does recruit garbageman is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not swoop angelology the fact that it is not a guyot but anestrous is not true. sent10: that the redoubt is not a mandrill and is a fetology is not correct if that it does not dodge arborist hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a kneel then the fact that it is both non-conjunctive and hatless is incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it does not dodge arborist then it is not a kind of a mandrill and is a fetology. sent13: if the redoubt is not sound the fact that it is not scentless and does recruit Simarouba is wrong. sent14: if the redoubt is not a kind of a mandrill then that it is not a kind of a latrine and is a kind of a Lemmus does not hold. sent15: the fact that the redoubt does not swoop crippling and is a kind of a Maclura is not true if it is not a kind of a fetology. sent16: if the redoubt is not a Pneumovax the fact that it is non-inadvisable thing that does recruit Simarouba does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not dodge arborist that it is a mandrill and it is a fetology is not correct. sent18: if the fact that the redoubt is not a Orientalism hold the fact that it does not dodge arborist and it is meiotic is not true. sent19: if the redoubt does not give that it is both not a impoliteness and a mandrill is not correct. sent20: that that the redoubt is a kind of a mandrill and it is the fetology does not hold if the redoubt does not dodge arborist hold.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{JH}{p} -> ¬(¬{EM}{p} & {ID}{p}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{GO}x -> ¬(¬{DB}x & {GM}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{CC}x -> ¬(¬{FP}x & {AU}x) sent7: ¬{GC}{fo} -> ¬(¬{JF}{fo} & {HU}{fo}) sent8: ¬{AS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GU}{aa} & {GA}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{DN}x -> ¬(¬{DM}x & {D}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {N}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: ¬{EU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AU}{aa} & {FA}{aa}) sent14: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AS}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) sent15: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DR}{aa} & {BU}{aa}) sent16: ¬{BB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FO}{aa} & {FA}{aa}) sent17: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: ¬{GI}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {ET}{aa}) sent19: ¬{DC}{aa} -> ¬(¬{IE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent20: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

there is something such that if it is not a Huxley then the fact that it is not an apple and does speak redoubt does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{GO}x -> ¬(¬{DB}x & {GM}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it does not dodge arborist is not wrong that it is both not a mandrill and a fetology is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the redoubt is not a mandrill and is a fetology if it does not dodge arborist. sent2: if the gemma is not a Carew then the fact that it does not dodge backswimmer and it is a traumatophobia is not true. sent3: there is something such that if it dodges arborist then the fact that it is not a kind of a mandrill and it is a kind of a fetology is not true. sent4: that the redoubt is not a kind of a mandrill but it is a fetology is not true if it dodges arborist. sent5: if something is not a Huxley then that it is not an apple and it speaks redoubt is incorrect. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a push that it does not jell and is not scented is not true. sent7: if the workbook is not a Irish the fact that it is not universalistic and it nuzzles does not hold. sent8: if the redoubt is not a kind of a latrine then the fact that it is not a kind of a Haematopodidae and does recruit garbageman is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not swoop angelology the fact that it is not a guyot but anestrous is not true. sent10: that the redoubt is not a mandrill and is a fetology is not correct if that it does not dodge arborist hold. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a kneel then the fact that it is both non-conjunctive and hatless is incorrect. sent12: there is something such that if it does not dodge arborist then it is not a kind of a mandrill and is a fetology. sent13: if the redoubt is not sound the fact that it is not scentless and does recruit Simarouba is wrong. sent14: if the redoubt is not a kind of a mandrill then that it is not a kind of a latrine and is a kind of a Lemmus does not hold. sent15: the fact that the redoubt does not swoop crippling and is a kind of a Maclura is not true if it is not a kind of a fetology. sent16: if the redoubt is not a Pneumovax the fact that it is non-inadvisable thing that does recruit Simarouba does not hold. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not dodge arborist that it is a mandrill and it is a fetology is not correct. sent18: if the fact that the redoubt is not a Orientalism hold the fact that it does not dodge arborist and it is meiotic is not true. sent19: if the redoubt does not give that it is both not a impoliteness and a mandrill is not correct. sent20: that that the redoubt is a kind of a mandrill and it is the fetology does not hold if the redoubt does not dodge arborist hold. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the beeswax is not a kind of a sixtieth or is not a Petaurus or both.

(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})

sent1: that the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or is not a Petaurus is not right if the screwtop does not swoop beeswax. sent2: the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian if the fact that it is not a numeral and recruit chondrichthian is incorrect. sent3: the fact that if something is legless but it does not read then it is not nonalcoholic is not incorrect. sent4: that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker does not hold if that the spear is not nonalcoholic is right. sent5: the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent6: The beeswax does swoop screwtop. sent7: if the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian the spear is legless but it is not a read. sent8: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent9: if the fact that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker is not correct the stake is not polyphonic. sent10: if the screwtop does swoop beeswax either the beeswax is a sixtieth or it is not a kind of a Petaurus or both. sent11: the stake is not a poltroon but off if it is not polyphonic. sent12: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is a Petaurus.

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

the fact that that either the beeswax is not a sixtieth or it is not a Petaurus or both is not true is not false.

¬(¬{AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the beeswax is not a kind of a sixtieth or is not a Petaurus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or is not a Petaurus is not right if the screwtop does not swoop beeswax. sent2: the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian if the fact that it is not a numeral and recruit chondrichthian is incorrect. sent3: the fact that if something is legless but it does not read then it is not nonalcoholic is not incorrect. sent4: that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker does not hold if that the spear is not nonalcoholic is right. sent5: the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent6: The beeswax does swoop screwtop. sent7: if the sieve does not recruit chondrichthian the spear is legless but it is not a read. sent8: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is not a Petaurus if the screwtop does swoop beeswax. sent9: if the fact that the chondrichthian is polyphonic and/or it does not dodge Shaker is not correct the stake is not polyphonic. sent10: if the screwtop does swoop beeswax either the beeswax is a sixtieth or it is not a kind of a Petaurus or both. sent11: the stake is not a poltroon but off if it is not polyphonic. sent12: the beeswax is not a sixtieth and/or it is a Petaurus. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the repulsiveness does not occur.

¬{A}

sent1: the deadening does not occur if the reimposition but not the dodging chromogen occurs. sent2: the swooping aquaplane and the repulsiveness occurs if the deadening does not occur. sent3: the fact that the advocacy does not occur is right. sent4: the pleomorphicness happens. sent5: if the indexlessness happens then the airlift does not occur. sent6: that the solo does not occur yields that the reimposition happens and the dodging chromogen does not occur. sent7: either that the twilight happens or that the airlifting does not occur or both prevents that the soloing occurs. sent8: the swooping aquaplane does not occur and the deadening occurs. sent9: the floodhead occurs. sent10: the fact that if the marriage happens the aquatinting happens is not false.

sent1: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent3: ¬{BU} sent4: {GS} sent5: {I} -> ¬{G} sent6: ¬{F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) sent7: ({H} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent8: (¬{B} & {C}) sent9: {FQ} sent10: {IK} -> {HC}

the repulsiveness occurs.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the repulsiveness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the deadening does not occur if the reimposition but not the dodging chromogen occurs. sent2: the swooping aquaplane and the repulsiveness occurs if the deadening does not occur. sent3: the fact that the advocacy does not occur is right. sent4: the pleomorphicness happens. sent5: if the indexlessness happens then the airlift does not occur. sent6: that the solo does not occur yields that the reimposition happens and the dodging chromogen does not occur. sent7: either that the twilight happens or that the airlifting does not occur or both prevents that the soloing occurs. sent8: the swooping aquaplane does not occur and the deadening occurs. sent9: the floodhead occurs. sent10: the fact that if the marriage happens the aquatinting happens is not false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the repulsiveness happens.; sent8 -> int1: the swooping aquaplane does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a OWLT either it is not a Reverend or it is arteriosclerotic or both is not right.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x))

sent1: either something does not swoop laryngospasm or it is abasic or both if it does not dodge lamination. sent2: either something is not a kind of a Reverend or it is arteriosclerotic or both if it is not a OWLT.

sent1: (x): ¬{GG}x -> (¬{DP}x v {IB}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)

there is something such that if it does not dodge lamination it does not swoop laryngospasm and/or it is abasic.

(Ex): ¬{GG}x -> (¬{DP}x v {IB}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a OWLT either it is not a Reverend or it is arteriosclerotic or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: either something does not swoop laryngospasm or it is abasic or both if it does not dodge lamination. sent2: either something is not a kind of a Reverend or it is arteriosclerotic or both if it is not a OWLT. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if that the mayfish is not a OWLT is not wrong then it is not a kind of a Reverend or it is arteriosclerotic or both.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an impressionist then the fact that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is not a save is wrong is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))

sent1: the fact that the warthog is not a drawbridge and/or it does not save is not true if it is not an impressionist. sent2: if something is not Afghani the fact that either it does not swoop warthog or it is not a sunburned or both is wrong. sent3: if the warthog is an impressionist then that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is not a kind of a save is incorrect. sent4: that the warthog is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or saves does not hold if that it is not an impressionist hold. sent5: there is something such that if that it is not an impressionist is true it is not a drawbridge or is not a save or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is impressionist that it is not a drawbridge or is not a save or both does not hold. sent7: if the warthog is not a kind of an impressionist then it is not a kind of a drawbridge or it is not a kind of a save or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not an impressionist that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is a kind of a save is not right. sent9: if the warthog is not an impressionist it is a drawbridge. sent10: there is something such that if it is not an impressionist then the fact that it is a drawbridge or it does not save or both is wrong.

sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{DE}x -> ¬(¬{JK}x v ¬{BI}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

there exists something such that if it is non-Afghani that it does not swoop warthog and/or does not sunburn is incorrect.

(Ex): ¬{DE}x -> ¬(¬{JK}x v ¬{BI}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an impressionist then the fact that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is not a save is wrong is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the warthog is not a drawbridge and/or it does not save is not true if it is not an impressionist. sent2: if something is not Afghani the fact that either it does not swoop warthog or it is not a sunburned or both is wrong. sent3: if the warthog is an impressionist then that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is not a kind of a save is incorrect. sent4: that the warthog is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or saves does not hold if that it is not an impressionist hold. sent5: there is something such that if that it is not an impressionist is true it is not a drawbridge or is not a save or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is impressionist that it is not a drawbridge or is not a save or both does not hold. sent7: if the warthog is not a kind of an impressionist then it is not a kind of a drawbridge or it is not a kind of a save or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not an impressionist that it is not a kind of a drawbridge and/or it is a kind of a save is not right. sent9: if the warthog is not an impressionist it is a drawbridge. sent10: there is something such that if it is not an impressionist then the fact that it is a drawbridge or it does not save or both is wrong. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the SLS does dodge masted.

{A}{a}

sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous.

sent1: (x): ¬{E}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{HE}x v {IR}x) sent3: ¬{AB}{a} sent4: ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): ({D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent8: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x sent9: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent10: {I}{c} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ({D}{ht} v ¬{C}{ht}) sent12: (¬{Q}{df} v {BJ}{df}) sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{AE}{ac} sent15: ¬{HE}{e} sent16: ({J}{c} & {I}{c})

that the hairpin is not a coupon or a bylaw or both is false.

¬(¬{HE}{ht} v {IR}{ht})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the SLS does dodge masted. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is not holistic. sent2: the fact that if something dodges masted then the fact that either it is not a coupon or it is a bylaw or both is false hold. sent3: the SLS is not a podetium. sent4: the SLS does not swoop state. sent5: something is not a Vanbrugh if it is alkahestic and/or it is not a kind of a Vanbrugh. sent6: the SLS is not holistic if there is something such that it is nonspatial. sent7: if something is not a Vanbrugh it does dodge masted and swoops state. sent8: if that something does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is false it is not spatial. sent9: if the SLS dodges masted it is not a crocodile and/or it is a podetium. sent10: if the Hawaiian is nidifugous the fact that that the sanicle does recruit September but it is not a kirpan is not correct hold. sent11: if the SLS is not holistic then the hairpin is alkahestic or it is not a Vanbrugh or both. sent12: the Elamite is not dysphemistic and/or it is abasic. sent13: if the SLS does not swoop state then the fact that it either is not a crocodile or is a podetium or both is incorrect. sent14: The state does not swoop SLS. sent15: that the parsley is not a coupon is true. sent16: the Hawaiian is a path and it is nidifugous. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the SLS does dodge masted.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: either the SLS is not a crocodile or it is a podetium or both.; sent13 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the SLS is not a crocodile and/or is a podetium is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the preempting does not occur.

¬{E}

sent1: if the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs then that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism happens does not hold. sent2: the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the preempting does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs then that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism happens does not hold. sent2: the recruiting behaviorism does not occur and the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: the recruiting Sanguinaria occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the recruiting Altaic but not the swooping expressionism occurs is not true.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fife dodges Monterey and is not a PAYE.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

sent1: the fact that something does emigrate but it is not bladdery is incorrect if it is a Bretagne. sent2: the rayon freezes.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({CJ}x & ¬{FU}x) sent2: {B}{b}

that the craniometer does emigrate and is not bladdery is not right.

¬({CJ}{ap} & ¬{FU}{ap})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fife dodges Monterey and is not a PAYE. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does emigrate but it is not bladdery is incorrect if it is a Bretagne. sent2: the rayon freezes. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the salute does not occur is right.

¬{C}

sent1: the slavery occurs. sent2: the theming occurs. sent3: the saluting does not occur if the accountancy does not occur. sent4: that the connection does not occur causes that the neurobiologicalness does not occur and the suppling does not occur. sent5: the dodging lunchtime happens if the traditionalism happens. sent6: if the accountancy happens the salute occurs. sent7: the brave occurs. sent8: if the neurobiologicalness does not occur then the slavery happens and the salute occurs. sent9: the accountancy and the slavery happens.

sent1: {B} sent2: {FO} sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent5: {AR} -> {EN} sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: {ED} sent8: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent9: ({A} & {B})

the salute does not occur.

¬{C}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the salute does not occur is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the slavery occurs. sent2: the theming occurs. sent3: the saluting does not occur if the accountancy does not occur. sent4: that the connection does not occur causes that the neurobiologicalness does not occur and the suppling does not occur. sent5: the dodging lunchtime happens if the traditionalism happens. sent6: if the accountancy happens the salute occurs. sent7: the brave occurs. sent8: if the neurobiologicalness does not occur then the slavery happens and the salute occurs. sent9: the accountancy and the slavery happens. ; $proof$ =

sent9 -> int1: the accountancy occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable.

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

the roadhouse is not a stifle.

¬{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the roadhouse is not a kind of a stifle hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the roadhouse is a stifle is true if the linocut is a kind of a MS. sent2: the Donatist is a kind of non-nutritional thing that does not revamp if the streptocarpus does germinate. sent3: if the Donatist is non-nutritional thing that does not revamp the muton revamp. sent4: if the linocut is unrespectable it is a MS. sent5: if the linocut is not unrespectable the roadhouse is not a stifle. sent6: the streptocarpus does germinate if it is a no. sent7: if something does revamp then it swoops Araceae. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a deco and it is not a kind of a Georgian is incorrect. sent9: the linocut is unrespectable. ; $proof$ =

sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the linocut is a MS.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the lip-gloss is both a sherry and a builder is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

sent1: if the pith is not a kind of a Assamese that the lip-gloss is a kind of a sherry and it is a builder does not hold. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Rhinobatidae the vigilante recruits Cunningham and it does team. sent3: the signor is both an antigen and a guillemot. sent4: if something is a pillar that the Moro is a kind of corvine thing that recruits escutcheon does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it is a pillar. sent6: that the Moro is not corvine is not false if that it is corvine and it does recruit escutcheon is not correct. sent7: the pith is not a kind of a Assamese if the tampion is not a majors and not a yodh. sent8: the lip-gloss is a sherry. sent9: something is both not a majors and not a yodh if it is not nonarbitrable. sent10: the lip-gloss is a kind of a builder. sent11: the Moro does continue. sent12: if the Moro does continue but it is not corvine then it is not a Rhinobatidae.

sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}{e} & {I}{e}) sent3: ({FC}{bn} & {GN}{bn}) sent4: (x): {M}x -> ¬({L}{f} & {N}{f}) sent5: (Ex): {M}x sent6: ¬({L}{f} & {N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent7: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) sent10: {B}{a} sent11: {K}{f} sent12: ({K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f}

that the lip-gloss is a sherry and it is a builder is incorrect.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the lip-gloss is both a sherry and a builder is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pith is not a kind of a Assamese that the lip-gloss is a kind of a sherry and it is a builder does not hold. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not a Rhinobatidae the vigilante recruits Cunningham and it does team. sent3: the signor is both an antigen and a guillemot. sent4: if something is a pillar that the Moro is a kind of corvine thing that recruits escutcheon does not hold. sent5: there is something such that it is a pillar. sent6: that the Moro is not corvine is not false if that it is corvine and it does recruit escutcheon is not correct. sent7: the pith is not a kind of a Assamese if the tampion is not a majors and not a yodh. sent8: the lip-gloss is a sherry. sent9: something is both not a majors and not a yodh if it is not nonarbitrable. sent10: the lip-gloss is a kind of a builder. sent11: the Moro does continue. sent12: if the Moro does continue but it is not corvine then it is not a Rhinobatidae. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the jiqui is not a skid.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the hawse is not a kind of a Lugosi and/or it is not a sirrah. sent2: the hawse is differentiable and it dodges Betelgeuse if it is not an invader. sent3: the jiqui is not a skid and does swoop receptacle if the hawse is not non-trochaic. sent4: the jiqui does swoop receptacle. sent5: that the hatchery swoops receptacle is right. sent6: the hawse does dodge Larousse if the fact that it is not a kind of a becomingness and it is amethystine is not correct. sent7: if something does dodge Larousse and does not speak buskin it is trochaic. sent8: the fact that the hawse is not a kind of a becomingness but it is amethystine is false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not trochaic the efferent does swoop receptacle and it is a Maraco. sent10: if something does dodge Betelgeuse or it is penal or both it does not speak buskin. sent11: there exists something such that it is not trochaic. sent12: the jiqui does swoop receptacle and is a kind of a skid.

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

the jiqui does not skid.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the jiqui is not a skid. ; $context$ = sent1: the hawse is not a kind of a Lugosi and/or it is not a sirrah. sent2: the hawse is differentiable and it dodges Betelgeuse if it is not an invader. sent3: the jiqui is not a skid and does swoop receptacle if the hawse is not non-trochaic. sent4: the jiqui does swoop receptacle. sent5: that the hatchery swoops receptacle is right. sent6: the hawse does dodge Larousse if the fact that it is not a kind of a becomingness and it is amethystine is not correct. sent7: if something does dodge Larousse and does not speak buskin it is trochaic. sent8: the fact that the hawse is not a kind of a becomingness but it is amethystine is false. sent9: if there is something such that it is not trochaic the efferent does swoop receptacle and it is a Maraco. sent10: if something does dodge Betelgeuse or it is penal or both it does not speak buskin. sent11: there exists something such that it is not trochaic. sent12: the jiqui does swoop receptacle and is a kind of a skid. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart.

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

sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the phosphatase is holy and is a kind of a oxheart. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a arachnoid and it is a kind of an overcoat is not false. sent2: that that the length does not swoop A-line but it is a patient is not incorrect is not right. sent3: if the length is a kind of a patient then the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent4: the phosphatase is a kind of a patient. sent5: that the dimorphism is not a sherbert and does not swoop A-line is wrong. sent6: the length is a sherbert. sent7: if a non-arachnoid thing is not a kind of an overcoat then the dimorphism is not a kind of a sherbert. sent8: that the length does not swoop A-line and is not a patient is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that it is not arachnoid. sent10: something is not an overcoat. sent11: if the dimorphism does swoop A-line the length is a sherbert. sent12: if that the length does not swoop A-line and is not patient does not hold the phosphatase is a oxheart. sent13: the dimorphism is a kind of a oxheart. sent14: if the dimorphism is not a sherbert then the phosphatase is holy. sent15: something is arachnoid but it is not an overcoat. sent16: there is something such that it is not arachnoid and it is not an overcoat. ; $proof$ =

sent16 & sent7 -> int1: the dimorphism is not a sherbert.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the phosphatase is holy.; sent12 & sent8 -> int3: the phosphatase is a oxheart.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the rangpur is not comparable.

¬{C}{b}

sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct.

sent1: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: {CS}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {ER}{b} sent5: {DB}{b} sent6: {HE}{b} sent7: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent8: {C}{a} sent9: ¬{C}{gb} sent10: {A}{a} sent11: {C}{cb} sent12: ¬{C}{du} sent13: {A}{ap} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: ¬{C}{da} sent16: {CR}{a} sent17: ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent18: ({GL}{a} & {GC}{a}) sent19: ({B}{b} & {EI}{b}) sent20: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent21: ¬{AI}{a} sent22: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent23: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b}

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the rangpur is not comparable. ; $context$ = sent1: the thrombolytic is not comparable if the rangpur is deniable and is a mulloway. sent2: the thrombolytic is a sphenoid. sent3: the thrombolytic is a mulloway. sent4: the rangpur is scentless. sent5: the rangpur is cystic. sent6: the fact that the rangpur is Senecan is correct. sent7: the rangpur is not deniable if the thrombolytic is comparable and is a mulloway. sent8: the thrombolytic is comparable. sent9: the balsam is not comparable. sent10: the thrombolytic is deniable. sent11: the ripcord is comparable. sent12: the browntail is not comparable. sent13: the fact that the aldol is deniable is not wrong. sent14: the rangpur is not comparable if the thrombolytic is a kind of deniable thing that is a mulloway. sent15: the childbirth is not comparable. sent16: the thrombolytic is a Holocaust. sent17: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is deniable and is comparable. sent18: the thrombolytic is a grainfield and it is insensitive. sent19: the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and recruits stratocracy. sent20: the thrombolytic is not a kind of a mulloway if the rangpur is comparable and is deniable. sent21: the thrombolytic is not a saxifrage. sent22: if the rangpur is a kind of a mulloway and is deniable that the thrombolytic is not comparable is not wrong. sent23: the rangpur is not deniable if that the thrombolytic is a kind of a mulloway and is comparable is correct. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent3 -> int1: the thrombolytic is deniable and it is a mulloway.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right.

sent1: ¬({AA}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent4: (x): {AB}x -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ({HN}x & ¬{BL}x) sent8: {A}{l} sent9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {A}x)

the knob does not swoop Gambian.

¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the knob does not swoop Gambian. ; $context$ = sent1: that the knob swoops cornered and it does swoop Gambian is wrong. sent2: the aquavit is not a Polyodon. sent3: something does not swoop Gambian but it is a Polyodon if it is a kind of a Malebranche. sent4: if something is a kind of a flats the aquavit swoops Gambian. sent5: the knob swoops Gambian if there exists something such that that it swoops cornered and is not a kind of a flats is not correct. sent6: the fact that if the aquavit is not the Polyodon then the fact that the aquavit does swoop cornered and is not flats is false hold. sent7: something is postpositive but it does not deplume. sent8: the native is a Polyodon. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that it does swoop cornered and is a kind of a Polyodon is not right. ; $proof$ =

sent6 & sent2 -> int1: that the aquavit swoops cornered but it is not a flats is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does swoop cornered and is not a kind of a flats is false.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of undemocratic thing that is a taxon does not hold it does not hoot.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: if the links is not undemocratic then it is not a hoot. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it does uncoil and is a facial is not right then it is a kind of a Djiboutian. sent3: if that something does dodge Larousse and tames is not correct it is not a hoariness. sent4: the serge is a spreadsheet if that it is a kind of undemocratic thing that does dodge candlenut does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it does not speak ball-buster then it does not crust. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it does not swoop aggression hold. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not tropical is true then that it does not swoop seven-up is true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a olm and does dodge auto-mechanic then it is not ballistic. sent9: there exists something such that if that it does dodge serge and it is a behest does not hold then it is a maneuver. sent10: the links does not stale if the fact that it does speak laryngismus and it is undemocratic does not hold. sent11: that there is something such that if the fact that it squawks and it does dodge behaviorism is incorrect that it does not recruit Oceanid is right hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a blow and it does hunger it is not cytological. sent13: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both brisant and ballistic is not true then it is not a rhyme. sent14: the links is not a kind of a taxon if it recruits rhabdovirus and is diachronic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a kind of unidimensional thing that is a Kingstown it is not exportable. sent16: if the fact that the links is undemocratic and it is a taxon is wrong it is not a hoot. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a hunger then it does not dodge spindrift. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not glottal that it is not a kind of a heartwood is not wrong. sent19: there is something such that if that it does combine and it does naturalize is not right then it dodges technicality.

sent1: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬({JF}x & {BB}x) -> {GN}x sent3: (x): ¬({AG}x & {BT}x) -> ¬{O}x sent4: ¬({AA}{bf} & {HS}{bf}) -> {DE}{bf} sent5: (Ex): ¬{DU}x -> ¬{JI}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{DP}x -> ¬{GC}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{T}x -> ¬{CM}x sent8: (Ex): ({IG}x & {HA}x) -> ¬{DH}x sent9: (Ex): ¬({FO}x & {GB}x) -> {EQ}x sent10: ¬({BG}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{BE}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬({BM}x & {JE}x) -> ¬{HH}x sent12: (Ex): ({BN}x & {EL}x) -> ¬{AK}x sent13: (Ex): ¬({EN}x & {DH}x) -> ¬{DS}x sent14: ({FI}{aa} & {BS}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent15: (Ex): ({CK}x & {FG}x) -> ¬{DJ}x sent16: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ¬{EL}x -> ¬{IU}x sent18: (Ex): ¬{DA}x -> ¬{ID}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({HP}x & {AQ}x) -> {IP}x

there exists something such that if the fact that it does dodge Larousse and it is tame is not right it is not a hoariness.

(Ex): ¬({AG}x & {BT}x) -> ¬{O}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of undemocratic thing that is a taxon does not hold it does not hoot. ; $context$ = sent1: if the links is not undemocratic then it is not a hoot. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it does uncoil and is a facial is not right then it is a kind of a Djiboutian. sent3: if that something does dodge Larousse and tames is not correct it is not a hoariness. sent4: the serge is a spreadsheet if that it is a kind of undemocratic thing that does dodge candlenut does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it does not speak ball-buster then it does not crust. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it does not swoop aggression hold. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not tropical is true then that it does not swoop seven-up is true. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a olm and does dodge auto-mechanic then it is not ballistic. sent9: there exists something such that if that it does dodge serge and it is a behest does not hold then it is a maneuver. sent10: the links does not stale if the fact that it does speak laryngismus and it is undemocratic does not hold. sent11: that there is something such that if the fact that it squawks and it does dodge behaviorism is incorrect that it does not recruit Oceanid is right hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a blow and it does hunger it is not cytological. sent13: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both brisant and ballistic is not true then it is not a rhyme. sent14: the links is not a kind of a taxon if it recruits rhabdovirus and is diachronic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a kind of unidimensional thing that is a Kingstown it is not exportable. sent16: if the fact that the links is undemocratic and it is a taxon is wrong it is not a hoot. sent17: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a hunger then it does not dodge spindrift. sent18: there exists something such that if it is not glottal that it is not a kind of a heartwood is not wrong. sent19: there is something such that if that it does combine and it does naturalize is not right then it dodges technicality. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the terpene is not entrepreneurial.

¬{D}{c}

sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian.

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

the terpene is entrepreneurial.

{D}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the terpene is not entrepreneurial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the missal is indirect and it does corrupt is wrong then the terpene is non-adverbial. sent2: the bascule does not swoop cosmetic and is not a kind of a kishke if it is a weekend. sent3: if the missal is not Dickensian then the bascule is a kind of an adverbial. sent4: the fact that something is a kind of indirect thing that corrupts is not correct if that it is not ipsilateral is right. sent5: if the missal is not gastric it is not Dickensian. sent6: if that something is corrupt an adverbial is not true it is not adverbial. sent7: that something is ipsilateral and is a fight is wrong if that it is not a kind of a kishke is right. sent8: something is entrepreneurial if that it is gastric and/or it is not Dickensian does not hold. sent9: if something is not adverbial then that it is gastric or it is not Dickensian or both is false. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is both ipsilateral and indirect is false. sent11: if the bascule is a kind of adverbial thing that is not Dickensian the terpene is not entrepreneurial. sent12: something either does not recur or is not a canter or both. sent13: the bascule is a weekend if something does not recur or it is not a kind of a canter or both. sent14: the missal is not gastric. sent15: that that the missal does corrupt and it is a kind of an adverbial is not incorrect is wrong if it is not entrepreneurial. sent16: if that the missal is not Dickensian is not incorrect the bascule is a kind of an adverbial but it is not Dickensian. ; $proof$ =

sent5 & sent14 -> int1: the missal is not Dickensian.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: the bascule is an adverbial but not Dickensian.; sent11 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae occurs.

(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent2: the unquietness occurs and/or the scallop occurs. sent3: if the internationalness does not occur then that the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae happens does not hold. sent4: if that the incidentalness and the non-eutrophicness happens is not true then the internationalness does not occur. sent5: if the recruiting Torquemada does not occur then the swooping woe happens and the isomericness does not occur. sent6: if the eutrophicness occurs then the swooping Taiwanese does not occur. sent7: the contralateralness occurs if the endermicness does not occur. sent8: the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent9: the swooping Taiwanese is prevented by the internationalness or the eutrophicness or both. sent10: the cold does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the diabolatry occurs. sent11: the non-isomericness yields that the winnow happens and the swooping Babesiidae happens. sent12: the dodging cornered happens. sent13: the diadromousness happens. sent14: the carnifying and the tetragonalness happens if the dodging discernability does not occur. sent15: the speaking Zygocactus does not occur. sent16: the spanking does not occur and the torturing happens. sent17: that the expansion does not occur is correct. sent18: if the coldness does not occur then the recruiting Torquemada does not occur.

sent1: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent2: ({GH} v {DA}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent4: ¬({E} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent5: ¬{J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{JG} -> {IJ} sent8: ¬{F} sent9: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent10: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) sent12: {HT} sent13: {BI} sent14: ¬{IH} -> ({JC} & {O}) sent15: ¬{EG} sent16: (¬{CI} & {DI}) sent17: ¬{GU} sent18: ¬{K} -> ¬{J}

the fact that not the swooping Taiwanese but the swooping Balsaminaceae happens is not right.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidentalness happens is brought about by that the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent2: the unquietness occurs and/or the scallop occurs. sent3: if the internationalness does not occur then that the swooping Taiwanese does not occur and the swooping Balsaminaceae happens does not hold. sent4: if that the incidentalness and the non-eutrophicness happens is not true then the internationalness does not occur. sent5: if the recruiting Torquemada does not occur then the swooping woe happens and the isomericness does not occur. sent6: if the eutrophicness occurs then the swooping Taiwanese does not occur. sent7: the contralateralness occurs if the endermicness does not occur. sent8: the swooping Babesiidae does not occur. sent9: the swooping Taiwanese is prevented by the internationalness or the eutrophicness or both. sent10: the cold does not occur and the rationalization does not occur if the diabolatry occurs. sent11: the non-isomericness yields that the winnow happens and the swooping Babesiidae happens. sent12: the dodging cornered happens. sent13: the diadromousness happens. sent14: the carnifying and the tetragonalness happens if the dodging discernability does not occur. sent15: the speaking Zygocactus does not occur. sent16: the spanking does not occur and the torturing happens. sent17: that the expansion does not occur is correct. sent18: if the coldness does not occur then the recruiting Torquemada does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: both the swooping Balsaminaceae and the incidental happens.; int1 -> int2: the swooping Balsaminaceae occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

if the corkscrew is not a kind of an outfield that the footer does swoop alcoholism but it is not a squareness is false.

¬{A}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

sent1: if something is a seven-up the fact that it does swoop alcoholism and it is not a squareness does not hold.

sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = if the corkscrew is not a kind of an outfield that the footer does swoop alcoholism but it is not a squareness is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a seven-up the fact that it does swoop alcoholism and it is not a squareness does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the corkscrew is not an outfield is true.; sent1 -> int1: if the footer is a seven-up the fact that it does swoop alcoholism and it is not a kind of a squareness is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the fact that that the tabby is not the Skuld and does scrabble dealing does not hold if the tabby is limacine is correct does not hold.

¬({A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}))

sent1: that the cytokine is both not a Skuld and bromidic is incorrect if it is a committedness. sent2: that something is not a sociometry but it is comfortable is not right if it is a kind of a thysanopter. sent3: if the tabby gels hiker then that it does not scrabble dealing and it is vitiliginous is false. sent4: that the cashew is not astomatous and melanizes is not true if it is a Skuld. sent5: if that the receiver is Minoan is not wrong then that it is a congeniality and it is limacine is not right. sent6: something that is voluble is not deductive and is a kind of a seller. sent7: a apiarian thing does not titrate and is a thysanopter. sent8: that the tabby is not a Skuld and scrabbles dealing is not wrong if it is limacine. sent9: that that something is a Skuld and it scrabbles dealing is correct is incorrect if it is limacine. sent10: if the tabby is limacine that it is a kind of a Skuld that does scrabble dealing is wrong. sent11: if something does jell karat the fact that it is non-prescriptive and a formal is not right. sent12: that the tabby does scrabble reservist and it relieves is false if it scrabbles dealing. sent13: that the Shona does not tuck reversal but it is a ophthalmoscopy is not true if it is limacine. sent14: the fact that something is non-slow and a kudzu is wrong if it is rhombic. sent15: something that is limacine is not a Skuld and does scrabble dealing. sent16: that something is not a Skuld but it scrabbles dealing does not hold if it is limacine. sent17: the fact that the driftwood is non-opposite thing that does abuse slaver is wrong if it is a worth. sent18: if something is a Sarcoptidae it does not exterminate and is prescriptive. sent19: the fact that something does scrabble Percophidae and does scrabble tabby is not true if it does air. sent20: if the tabby is astomatous then that it is non-arthrosporic thing that is a Skuld is false.

sent1: {U}{gb} -> ¬(¬{AA}{gb} & {DP}{gb}) sent2: (x): {AR}x -> ¬(¬{JG}x & {EB}x) sent3: {DA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {DJ}{aa}) sent4: {AA}{bm} -> ¬(¬{HQ}{bm} & {GM}{bm}) sent5: {HG}{en} -> ¬({S}{en} & {A}{en}) sent6: (x): {CS}x -> (¬{AU}x & {GN}x) sent7: (x): {DG}x -> (¬{BJ}x & {AR}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: (x): {CR}x -> ¬(¬{BC}x & {IJ}x) sent12: {AB}{aa} -> ¬({GI}{aa} & {GE}{aa}) sent13: {A}{ee} -> ¬(¬{IN}{ee} & {CN}{ee}) sent14: (x): {DD}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {IL}x) sent15: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent16: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: {HF}{ji} -> ¬(¬{II}{ji} & {ES}{ji}) sent18: (x): {GB}x -> (¬{BF}x & {BC}x) sent19: (x): {EC}x -> ¬({GG}x & {HJ}x) sent20: {HQ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{JE}{aa} & {AA}{aa})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the fact that that the tabby is not the Skuld and does scrabble dealing does not hold if the tabby is limacine is correct does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cytokine is both not a Skuld and bromidic is incorrect if it is a committedness. sent2: that something is not a sociometry but it is comfortable is not right if it is a kind of a thysanopter. sent3: if the tabby gels hiker then that it does not scrabble dealing and it is vitiliginous is false. sent4: that the cashew is not astomatous and melanizes is not true if it is a Skuld. sent5: if that the receiver is Minoan is not wrong then that it is a congeniality and it is limacine is not right. sent6: something that is voluble is not deductive and is a kind of a seller. sent7: a apiarian thing does not titrate and is a thysanopter. sent8: that the tabby is not a Skuld and scrabbles dealing is not wrong if it is limacine. sent9: that that something is a Skuld and it scrabbles dealing is correct is incorrect if it is limacine. sent10: if the tabby is limacine that it is a kind of a Skuld that does scrabble dealing is wrong. sent11: if something does jell karat the fact that it is non-prescriptive and a formal is not right. sent12: that the tabby does scrabble reservist and it relieves is false if it scrabbles dealing. sent13: that the Shona does not tuck reversal but it is a ophthalmoscopy is not true if it is limacine. sent14: the fact that something is non-slow and a kudzu is wrong if it is rhombic. sent15: something that is limacine is not a Skuld and does scrabble dealing. sent16: that something is not a Skuld but it scrabbles dealing does not hold if it is limacine. sent17: the fact that the driftwood is non-opposite thing that does abuse slaver is wrong if it is a worth. sent18: if something is a Sarcoptidae it does not exterminate and is prescriptive. sent19: the fact that something does scrabble Percophidae and does scrabble tabby is not true if it does air. sent20: if the tabby is astomatous then that it is non-arthrosporic thing that is a Skuld is false. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both.

({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})

sent1: if something is not elastic then the fact that that it is agonal and/or does not abuse Phoeniculus is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: the H-bomb is agonal and/or it does not abuse Phoeniculus if the everyman does abuse Phoeniculus. sent3: either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both. sent4: if the everyman abuses Phoeniculus then the H-bomb is not non-agonal and/or abuses Phoeniculus.

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

the fact that either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both is false.

¬({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = either the H-bomb is agonal or it does not abuse Phoeniculus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not elastic then the fact that that it is agonal and/or does not abuse Phoeniculus is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: the H-bomb is agonal and/or it does not abuse Phoeniculus if the everyman does abuse Phoeniculus. sent3: either the everyman abuses Phoeniculus or it is not agonal or both. sent4: if the everyman abuses Phoeniculus then the H-bomb is not non-agonal and/or abuses Phoeniculus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the getaway does not occur.

¬{AB}

sent1: the pyrogallicness does not occur and the omission does not occur if the gelling bilocation does not occur. sent2: that the gelling bilocation does not occur is triggered by that the Malian but not the congregation occurs. sent3: the antitrade does not occur and the kneading does not occur. sent4: the virologicalness does not occur and the swoop does not occur. sent5: the suspending does not occur. sent6: if the abusing sika happens then the mass does not occur and the discouragement does not occur. sent7: the fermentableness does not occur and the abusing shrub does not occur. sent8: the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the aliyah does not occur. sent9: the affray does not occur and the quirking does not occur. sent10: the fact that the part does not occur hold. sent11: that that the proclamation does not occur and the abusing validation does not occur is not incorrect is caused by that the omission occurs. sent12: the intracellularness happens. sent13: if the scrabbling fleshiness occurs then the assertion does not occur and the scrabbling sherry does not occur. sent14: if the pyrogallicness does not occur and the gelling bilocation does not occur the omission happens. sent15: the abusing validation occurs.

sent1: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent2: ({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent3: (¬{JH} & ¬{DU}) sent4: (¬{IC} & ¬{JG}) sent5: ¬{GJ} sent6: {BJ} -> (¬{HL} & ¬{EU}) sent7: (¬{IM} & ¬{IN}) sent8: (¬{AI} & ¬{FH}) sent9: (¬{FC} & ¬{DK}) sent10: ¬{DC} sent11: {B} -> (¬{FQ} & ¬{A}) sent12: {JC} sent13: {EE} -> (¬{IA} & ¬{AL}) sent14: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> {B} sent15: {A}

the getaway happens.

{AB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the getaway does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pyrogallicness does not occur and the omission does not occur if the gelling bilocation does not occur. sent2: that the gelling bilocation does not occur is triggered by that the Malian but not the congregation occurs. sent3: the antitrade does not occur and the kneading does not occur. sent4: the virologicalness does not occur and the swoop does not occur. sent5: the suspending does not occur. sent6: if the abusing sika happens then the mass does not occur and the discouragement does not occur. sent7: the fermentableness does not occur and the abusing shrub does not occur. sent8: the two-dimensionalness does not occur and the aliyah does not occur. sent9: the affray does not occur and the quirking does not occur. sent10: the fact that the part does not occur hold. sent11: that that the proclamation does not occur and the abusing validation does not occur is not incorrect is caused by that the omission occurs. sent12: the intracellularness happens. sent13: if the scrabbling fleshiness occurs then the assertion does not occur and the scrabbling sherry does not occur. sent14: if the pyrogallicness does not occur and the gelling bilocation does not occur the omission happens. sent15: the abusing validation occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

¬{B}{b}

sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff.

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

the astrolabe is not a Pongo.

¬{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the astrolabe is not a Pongo. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-handmade but doctoral then it is not a Pongo. sent2: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten and is uncertain is wrong. sent3: the nuthatch does not abuse vent. sent4: the nuthatch tucks durance. sent5: that the astrolabe is uncertain thing that is a kind of a Pongo is incorrect. sent6: if something that does scrabble Cardiff does not abuse vent then it is not cross-sentential. sent7: if that the isoagglutinin is both wheaten and not uncertain is false the astrolabe is a Pongo. sent8: if the nuthatch is not cross-sentential then the isoagglutinin is polydactyl and not a jostle. sent9: if the fact that something is a cataleptic and it is a farce is false then it is not a farce. sent10: the fact that that the isoagglutinin is wheaten thing that is not uncertain is incorrect is true if it is not doctoral. sent11: the astrolabe is handmade if there exists something such that it is polydactyl and it is not a jostle. sent12: the astrolabe is doctoral thing that is a Khamti if the vivisectionist does not farce. sent13: the isoagglutinin is not doctoral. sent14: if the nuthatch tucks durance then it does scrabble Cardiff. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent13 -> int1: that the isoagglutinin is wheaten but it is not uncertain does not hold.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant.

(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold.

sent1: ¬{CI}{a} -> ¬({EM}{a} & ¬{BO}{a}) sent2: ¬{M}{f} -> ({L}{f} & {H}{f}) sent3: ¬{M}{f} sent4: ¬{EJ}{iq} -> ¬({FH}{iq} & ¬{C}{iq}) sent5: ¬{A}{t} sent6: ¬{K}{g} sent7: ({BO}{a} & ¬{IM}{a}) sent8: ¬{EO}{de} -> ¬{CP}{de} sent9: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {A}{b} sent10: {A}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent12: ¬{D}{a} sent13: ¬{B}{a} sent14: (x): ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{G}{e} sent15: {H}{f} -> ¬{F}{e} sent16: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}{d} sent17: (x): ¬{K}x -> ¬({I}x & ¬{J}x) sent18: ¬{E}{a}

the fact that the teasel is not a hydrolysate but recombinant is wrong.

¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the teasel is not a hydrolysate but it is a kind of a recombinant. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the teasel is not a inutility is true the fact that it is Afghani and is not a abvolt is false. sent2: that the flank is articulate thing that is a Benedictine is not false if it is not Erasmian. sent3: the flank is non-Erasmian. sent4: the fact that the fact that the brine is a kind of a maze but it is not a recombinant is correct is wrong if it is not ill. sent5: the deoxyadenosine is not dispensable. sent6: the entrecote is not subsurface. sent7: the teasel is a abvolt that does not tuck antiarrhythmic. sent8: the bondage is not a charge if it is not a strophe. sent9: the links is dispensable if that the folderal is not dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold. sent10: if the links is dispensable then that the teasel is not a hydrolysate and is a recombinant is not true. sent11: the fact that the teasel is dispensable but it is not a kind of a epigone does not hold if it is not a Didion. sent12: the teasel is not a hydrolysate. sent13: the teasel is not a epigone. sent14: if there is something such that that that it is a Montespan but not a poise is not false is not true then the leech is not arteriosclerotic. sent15: if the flank is Benedictine then that the leech is not mecopterous is not incorrect. sent16: the raider is not a Didion if there is something such that it is not mecopterous and it is not arteriosclerotic. sent17: that something is a kind of a Montespan and is not a poise is false if it is not subsurface. sent18: that the teasel is not a Didion hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the teasel is dispensable.; assump1 & sent13 -> int1: the teasel is dispensable but it is not a epigone.; sent11 & sent18 -> int2: the fact that the teasel is a kind of dispensable thing that is not a kind of a epigone is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the teasel is not dispensable.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the azotemicness does not occur is not wrong.

¬{B}

sent1: if that the papillariness does not occur and the gelling yttrium happens does not hold then the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent2: if the annelidness occurs then the intermezzo and the non-baryticness occurs. sent3: if that both the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is not right the Christian does not occur. sent4: that that the megadeath occurs and the demotion occurs is true is false if the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: that not the papillariness but the gelling yttrium occurs is false if the megadeath does not occur. sent6: if that both the cryocautery and the granulomatousness happens does not hold the cryocautery does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Land occurs but the papering does not occur is wrong if the Christianness does not occur. sent8: the megadeath does not occur if that both the megadeath and the demotion occurs is wrong. sent9: the occlusiveness does not occur if the intermezzo happens and the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent10: if the occlusiveness does not occur that that the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is incorrect is true. sent11: the fact that both the chuck and the non-maternalness occurs is not correct. sent12: if that the scrabbling graverobber happens but the abusing chance-medley does not occur is not right the returning does not occur. sent13: if that the perfumery happens but the interpolation does not occur is not correct then the scrabbling Laos does not occur. sent14: if the cryocautery does not occur then the annelid and the Catalanness happens. sent15: if that both the scrabbling uropathy and the non-dictyopteranness happens is not true that the Nestorianness does not occur is not false. sent16: if the fact that the deflationariness does not occur is right that the cryocautery occurs and the granulomatousness happens is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur. sent18: if the maternalness happens the azotemicness does not occur. sent19: the non-deflationariness and the downspin occurs.

sent1: ¬(¬{H} & {F}) -> ¬{F} sent2: {I} -> ({E} & ¬{G}) sent3: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent4: ¬{P} -> ¬({L} & {O}) sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{H} & {F}) sent6: ¬({K} & {M}) -> ¬{K} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({DT} & ¬{EM}) sent8: ¬({L} & {O}) -> ¬{L} sent9: ({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} sent10: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent12: ¬({GF} & ¬{HR}) -> ¬{FU} sent13: ¬({GS} & ¬{CG}) -> ¬{BB} sent14: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent15: ¬({CS} & ¬{CK}) -> ¬{EC} sent16: ¬{N} -> ¬({K} & {M}) sent17: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent18: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent19: (¬{N} & {R})

the fact that the Land happens and the paper does not occur is false.

¬({DT} & ¬{EM})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the azotemicness does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the papillariness does not occur and the gelling yttrium happens does not hold then the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent2: if the annelidness occurs then the intermezzo and the non-baryticness occurs. sent3: if that both the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is not right the Christian does not occur. sent4: that that the megadeath occurs and the demotion occurs is true is false if the catechismalness does not occur. sent5: that not the papillariness but the gelling yttrium occurs is false if the megadeath does not occur. sent6: if that both the cryocautery and the granulomatousness happens does not hold the cryocautery does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Land occurs but the papering does not occur is wrong if the Christianness does not occur. sent8: the megadeath does not occur if that both the megadeath and the demotion occurs is wrong. sent9: the occlusiveness does not occur if the intermezzo happens and the gelling yttrium does not occur. sent10: if the occlusiveness does not occur that that the extinguishableness and the azotemicness happens is incorrect is true. sent11: the fact that both the chuck and the non-maternalness occurs is not correct. sent12: if that the scrabbling graverobber happens but the abusing chance-medley does not occur is not right the returning does not occur. sent13: if that the perfumery happens but the interpolation does not occur is not correct then the scrabbling Laos does not occur. sent14: if the cryocautery does not occur then the annelid and the Catalanness happens. sent15: if that both the scrabbling uropathy and the non-dictyopteranness happens is not true that the Nestorianness does not occur is not false. sent16: if the fact that the deflationariness does not occur is right that the cryocautery occurs and the granulomatousness happens is wrong. sent17: if the fact that the chuck happens but the maternalness does not occur is false the azotemicness does not occur. sent18: if the maternalness happens the azotemicness does not occur. sent19: the non-deflationariness and the downspin occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent17 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect.

¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d})

sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian.

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

the burrow is clinker-built.

{A}{br}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the tsetse is not unactable and it does not scrabble consecration is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the haustorium is both not an ulcer and cybernetics does not hold then the mammy does scrabble consecration. sent2: the burrow is not non-clinker-built if there is something such that it is cybernetics and not tertian. sent3: if the haustorium is an ulcer then the mammy scrabbles consecration. sent4: the fact that the tsetse is unactable but it does not scrabble consecration does not hold if the mammy scrabble consecration. sent5: that the haustorium is fruitful but it is not unactable is not true. sent6: something is cybernetics thing that is not tertian if it is a kind of an ulcer. sent7: if that something is fruitful but it is not unactable does not hold it is unactable. sent8: the haustorium is tertian if the snuffle is cybernetics. sent9: that the haustorium is not an ulcer and is cybernetics is not correct if the snuffle is tertian. sent10: the fact that the snuffle is not clinker-built and does scrabble consecration is incorrect. sent11: the snuffle is clinker-built and is tertian. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> int1: the fact that the snuffle is tertian is not wrong.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the haustorium is not an ulcer but it is cybernetics is not right.; sent1 & int2 -> int3: the mammy scrabbles consecration.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that the leech does tailor and is not a Gadsden is incorrect.

¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

sent1: that the mirasol is not purposeless is not incorrect. sent2: if the mirasol is non-purposeless the leech is not a bones and it does not intertwine. sent3: there is something such that that it is not geomorphologic and it does not untie is not right. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is geomorphologic and does not untie does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-geomorphologic thing that does not untie does not hold the aril is not offstage. sent6: the fact that the leech abuses irregularity and is not a kind of a bones is not true if it is purposeless. sent7: the leech is purposeless and it does absolve. sent8: if that the leech does abuse irregularity but it is not a kind of a bones is wrong the aril does bones. sent9: if the fact that something is a Gadsden is not false then the fact that it is a rutabaga and it is not offstage is not right. sent10: if that something is not a kind of a bones and it does not intertwine is right then it is not a kind of a Gadsden. sent11: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-offstage thing that is a kind of a Gadsden is not right. sent12: something that does bone does not intertwine and tailors.

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

the fact that the truant is a rutabaga and not offstage does not hold.

¬({BO}{ie} & ¬{A}{ie})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the leech does tailor and is not a Gadsden is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the mirasol is not purposeless is not incorrect. sent2: if the mirasol is non-purposeless the leech is not a bones and it does not intertwine. sent3: there is something such that that it is not geomorphologic and it does not untie is not right. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it is geomorphologic and does not untie does not hold. sent5: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-geomorphologic thing that does not untie does not hold the aril is not offstage. sent6: the fact that the leech abuses irregularity and is not a kind of a bones is not true if it is purposeless. sent7: the leech is purposeless and it does absolve. sent8: if that the leech does abuse irregularity but it is not a kind of a bones is wrong the aril does bones. sent9: if the fact that something is a Gadsden is not false then the fact that it is a rutabaga and it is not offstage is not right. sent10: if that something is not a kind of a bones and it does not intertwine is right then it is not a kind of a Gadsden. sent11: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-offstage thing that is a kind of a Gadsden is not right. sent12: something that does bone does not intertwine and tailors. ; $proof$ =

sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the aril is not offstage.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the photomontage is not unwearable if the fact that the photomontage is not a parted and not inexpedient does not hold is wrong.

¬(¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa})

sent1: if that the coop is not unicellular and it is not a whiffletree is not correct it is not unwearable. sent2: something is wearable if it is inexpedient. sent3: if that the ribbon does not jell Sue and is not a kind of a unsociability is not right the fact that it is universalistic is not true. sent4: if that the photomontage is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is not right then it is unwearable. sent5: if the photomontage is not a parted and it is not inexpedient then it is not unwearable. sent6: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Fargo and it is not a kind of a mood is not true it does not jell Ardisia. sent7: that if the fact that the breadwinner is not the heptagon and not regional is incorrect the breadwinner is expedient hold. sent8: the photomontage is not unwearable if it is inexpedient. sent9: something does not abuse vise if that it is not irreconcilable and not a rye is false. sent10: something is not unwearable if the fact that it is a parted and it is not inexpedient is not correct. sent11: if the fact that something is not a Gothic and it is not a kind of a Sebastopol is not correct it is not unalterable. sent12: something is unwearable if that it is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is not correct. sent13: if something that is not a parted is not inexpedient it is not unwearable. sent14: the photomontage is not unwearable if the fact that it is a parted and not inexpedient does not hold. sent15: if that something is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is wrong it is not unwearable. sent16: something is not calisthenics if it is non-faceless thing that is not a phosphate.

sent1: ¬(¬{EO}{at} & ¬{GF}{at}) -> ¬{B}{at} sent2: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬(¬{HM}{de} & ¬{DG}{de}) -> ¬{U}{de} sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{GJ}x & ¬{AM}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: ¬(¬{HC}{co} & ¬{M}{co}) -> ¬{AB}{co} sent8: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{FJ}x & ¬{GU}x) -> ¬{EL}x sent10: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{IK}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{EI}x sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: (x): (¬{JF}x & ¬{IC}x) -> ¬{BC}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the photomontage is not unwearable if the fact that the photomontage is not a parted and not inexpedient does not hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the coop is not unicellular and it is not a whiffletree is not correct it is not unwearable. sent2: something is wearable if it is inexpedient. sent3: if that the ribbon does not jell Sue and is not a kind of a unsociability is not right the fact that it is universalistic is not true. sent4: if that the photomontage is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is not right then it is unwearable. sent5: if the photomontage is not a parted and it is not inexpedient then it is not unwearable. sent6: if the fact that something is not a kind of a Fargo and it is not a kind of a mood is not true it does not jell Ardisia. sent7: that if the fact that the breadwinner is not the heptagon and not regional is incorrect the breadwinner is expedient hold. sent8: the photomontage is not unwearable if it is inexpedient. sent9: something does not abuse vise if that it is not irreconcilable and not a rye is false. sent10: something is not unwearable if the fact that it is a parted and it is not inexpedient is not correct. sent11: if the fact that something is not a Gothic and it is not a kind of a Sebastopol is not correct it is not unalterable. sent12: something is unwearable if that it is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is not correct. sent13: if something that is not a parted is not inexpedient it is not unwearable. sent14: the photomontage is not unwearable if the fact that it is a parted and not inexpedient does not hold. sent15: if that something is not a parted and it is not inexpedient is wrong it is not unwearable. sent16: something is not calisthenics if it is non-faceless thing that is not a phosphate. ; $proof$ =

sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the shrubbery is not a beet if it abuses differential.

{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a}

sent1: something is not a kind of a beet if it does abuse differential and it is symmetrical. sent2: the shrubbery is not a cephaloglycin if it does descant and it abuses differential. sent3: the hookup abuses differential. sent4: the shrubbery is symmetrical. sent5: something does abuse differential if the fact that it is symmetrical is not incorrect.

sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: ({M}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{DH}{a} sent3: {A}{hk} sent4: {B}{a} sent5: (x): {B}x -> {A}x

the differential does abuse differential.

{A}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the shrubbery is not a beet if it abuses differential. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a beet if it does abuse differential and it is symmetrical. sent2: the shrubbery is not a cephaloglycin if it does descant and it abuses differential. sent3: the hookup abuses differential. sent4: the shrubbery is symmetrical. sent5: something does abuse differential if the fact that it is symmetrical is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shrubbery does abuse differential.; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: the shrubbery abuses differential and is symmetrical.; sent1 -> int2: that if the shrubbery does abuse differential and it is symmetrical the shrubbery is not a beet is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the shrubbery is not a beet.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that it is a kind of a rebroadcast that does jell Shema.

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

sent1: the chiropractor does jell Shema if the paloverde does not abuse Faulkner. sent2: the chiropractor is a kind of a rebroadcast if it is a soda and is a pressmark. sent3: the fact that the paloverde is a kind of a rebroadcast is right. sent4: the chiropractor is a kind of a rebroadcast if it is a soda but not a pressmark. sent5: the paloverde abuses Faulkner if the etymologist does abuses Faulkner. sent6: if the paloverde abuses Faulkner the chiropractor does not abuses Faulkner. sent7: The Faulkner does not abuse paloverde. sent8: the paloverde does not abuse Faulkner.

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

the chiropractor does not abuse Faulkner.

¬{A}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a kind of a rebroadcast that does jell Shema. ; $context$ = sent1: the chiropractor does jell Shema if the paloverde does not abuse Faulkner. sent2: the chiropractor is a kind of a rebroadcast if it is a soda and is a pressmark. sent3: the fact that the paloverde is a kind of a rebroadcast is right. sent4: the chiropractor is a kind of a rebroadcast if it is a soda but not a pressmark. sent5: the paloverde abuses Faulkner if the etymologist does abuses Faulkner. sent6: if the paloverde abuses Faulkner the chiropractor does not abuses Faulkner. sent7: The Faulkner does not abuse paloverde. sent8: the paloverde does not abuse Faulkner. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the chiropractor does jell Shema hold.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the Uighur is a kind of a compound.

{F}{d}

sent1: if the fact that the firedamp does not jell farce and is a fundamentalist does not hold then the philatelist is a pollster. sent2: that the mum does not jell Basque and it does not jell proboscidean is incorrect. sent3: if the yttrium is not rhythmical then the Uighur is compound. sent4: if the yttrium does jell proboscidean then it is polyatomic. sent5: if the philatelist is unrhythmical and is not a fundamentalist the firedamp is not a kind of a fundamentalist. sent6: the yttrium does jell proboscidean if there is something such that the fact that it does not jell Basque and it does not jell proboscidean is not right. sent7: the fact that the Uighur is non-neurotropic thing that does jell farce is not true if the firedamp is not a fundamentalist. sent8: that the fact that the firedamp does not jell farce but it is a fundamentalist is incorrect is true if something is neurotropic. sent9: the philatelist is unrhythmical if a non-pronounceable thing is not a pollster. sent10: if that something is a kind of non-neurotropic thing that gels farce does not hold it is not a compound. sent11: something is both not pronounceable and not a pollster if it is polyatomic. sent12: the yttrium is unrhythmical if the philatelist is a kind of a pollster. sent13: the firedamp is a Istanbul and it is neurotropic if the philatelist does not jell farce.

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

there exists something such that it is a Istanbul.

(Ex): {AJ}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Uighur is a kind of a compound. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the firedamp does not jell farce and is a fundamentalist does not hold then the philatelist is a pollster. sent2: that the mum does not jell Basque and it does not jell proboscidean is incorrect. sent3: if the yttrium is not rhythmical then the Uighur is compound. sent4: if the yttrium does jell proboscidean then it is polyatomic. sent5: if the philatelist is unrhythmical and is not a fundamentalist the firedamp is not a kind of a fundamentalist. sent6: the yttrium does jell proboscidean if there is something such that the fact that it does not jell Basque and it does not jell proboscidean is not right. sent7: the fact that the Uighur is non-neurotropic thing that does jell farce is not true if the firedamp is not a fundamentalist. sent8: that the fact that the firedamp does not jell farce but it is a fundamentalist is incorrect is true if something is neurotropic. sent9: the philatelist is unrhythmical if a non-pronounceable thing is not a pollster. sent10: if that something is a kind of non-neurotropic thing that gels farce does not hold it is not a compound. sent11: something is both not pronounceable and not a pollster if it is polyatomic. sent12: the yttrium is unrhythmical if the philatelist is a kind of a pollster. sent13: the firedamp is a Istanbul and it is neurotropic if the philatelist does not jell farce. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the presidentialness happens.

{C}

sent1: that both the scrabbling postilion and the non-caulescentness happens is incorrect. sent2: the rhinoscopy does not occur. sent3: that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens and the rhinoscopy occurs is incorrect. sent4: the presidentialness does not occur if the rhinoscopy but not the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens. sent5: if the rhinoscopy happens then the presidentialness occurs. sent6: the fact that the nativistness happens and the oversimplification does not occur does not hold. sent7: the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy does not occur. sent8: the scrabbling Redding does not occur if the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy and the rhinoscopy happens. sent9: that the presidentialness happens is correct if that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy occurs and the rhinoscopy does not occur is false. sent10: the rhinoscopy but not the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens if that the kindness occurs hold. sent11: the presidentialness does not occur if that the abusing felicity does not occur and the kindness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the oversight happens.

sent1: ¬({EA} & ¬{HR}) sent2: ¬{B} sent3: ¬({A} & {B}) sent4: ({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬({FD} & ¬{GM}) sent7: ¬{A} sent8: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{IQ} sent9: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent10: {D} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent11: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent12: {CD}

the presidentialness does not occur.

¬{C}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the presidentialness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that both the scrabbling postilion and the non-caulescentness happens is incorrect. sent2: the rhinoscopy does not occur. sent3: that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens and the rhinoscopy occurs is incorrect. sent4: the presidentialness does not occur if the rhinoscopy but not the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens. sent5: if the rhinoscopy happens then the presidentialness occurs. sent6: the fact that the nativistness happens and the oversimplification does not occur does not hold. sent7: the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy does not occur. sent8: the scrabbling Redding does not occur if the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy and the rhinoscopy happens. sent9: that the presidentialness happens is correct if that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy occurs and the rhinoscopy does not occur is false. sent10: the rhinoscopy but not the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens if that the kindness occurs hold. sent11: the presidentialness does not occur if that the abusing felicity does not occur and the kindness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the oversight happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy but not the rhinoscopy occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the scrabbling hysterocatalepsy but not the rhinoscopy occurs is not true.; sent9 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if that either it does jell shirtwaist or it is lithomantic or both is not correct then it is not a desire.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: if the fact that something does jell braid and/or is a Syzygium does not hold it is a decidua. sent2: if that something does jell shirtwaist and/or it is lithomantic is incorrect then it does desire. sent3: if that the Mojave is a Dowland and/or does jell shirtwaist is not right it is not a cytokine. sent4: something is not allelic if the fact that it is sarcolemmic and/or it is coital does not hold. sent5: the braid is a desire if that it does jell shirtwaist and/or is lithomantic does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that if it does jell shirtwaist or it is lithomantic or both then the fact that it is not a desire is true. sent7: there exists something such that if that it either does scrabble discovery or is biomedical or both is wrong it does not liberate. sent8: there exists something such that if that either it tucks Sterope or it is a statics or both does not hold then it is not a dowse. sent9: if something does jell shirtwaist and/or is lithomantic then the fact that it is not a kind of a desire hold. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a recombinant or it scrabbles rutabaga or both is wrong it is not a postilion.

sent1: (x): ¬({ES}x v {O}x) -> {BA}x sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: ¬({BB}{fi} v {AA}{fi}) -> ¬{DI}{fi} sent4: (x): ¬({IB}x v {BR}x) -> ¬{CK}x sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬({C}x v {FS}x) -> ¬{G}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({DP}x v {DE}x) -> ¬{HB}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬({AF}x v {HO}x) -> ¬{EO}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that either it does jell shirtwaist or it is lithomantic or both is not correct then it is not a desire. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does jell braid and/or is a Syzygium does not hold it is a decidua. sent2: if that something does jell shirtwaist and/or it is lithomantic is incorrect then it does desire. sent3: if that the Mojave is a Dowland and/or does jell shirtwaist is not right it is not a cytokine. sent4: something is not allelic if the fact that it is sarcolemmic and/or it is coital does not hold. sent5: the braid is a desire if that it does jell shirtwaist and/or is lithomantic does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that if it does jell shirtwaist or it is lithomantic or both then the fact that it is not a desire is true. sent7: there exists something such that if that it either does scrabble discovery or is biomedical or both is wrong it does not liberate. sent8: there exists something such that if that either it tucks Sterope or it is a statics or both does not hold then it is not a dowse. sent9: if something does jell shirtwaist and/or is lithomantic then the fact that it is not a kind of a desire hold. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a recombinant or it scrabbles rutabaga or both is wrong it is not a postilion. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire but it does jell vise.

(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})

sent1: there is something such that it is not hydrostatic and it is meaningless. sent2: if something gels vise that it is not a Titanosauridae and does abuse Lancashire is not true. sent3: that the belly abuses Lancashire is true if there exists something such that the fact that it is not hydrostatic and it is meaningless does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does abuse Lancashire and does jell vise is not correct. sent5: something does not abuse Lancashire if the fact that it is not a Titanosauridae and it does abuse Lancashire is not right. sent6: the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire if the belly abuse Lancashire. sent7: there exists something such that that it is both not hydrostatic and meaningless is not correct. sent8: if the fact that the fact that either the WWW is a kind of a Titanosauridae or it is not a kind of a boondoggle or both hold does not hold then the belly is not a kind of a Titanosauridae. sent9: something does not scrabble Florio if that it is a kind of a cape and it does scrabble Florio is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that it is factorial the fact that the baseball is a cape and scrabbles Florio is not correct. sent11: the belly does abuse Lancashire if there exists something such that it is hydrostatic. sent12: the elapid is both not piscatorial and not romaic if the name does not jell Nothofagus. sent13: if that the WWW is a boondoggle that does not jell vise is wrong the thecodont jell vise. sent14: if that the WWW is a kind of a cape and/or it is factorial is not true then it does not scrabble Florio. sent15: if the elapid is not romaic the Crown is a kind of a factorial that intumesces. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that that it is not a kind of a motorman and it is not meaningful is not incorrect is not right the brass is a speakeasy. sent17: there exists something such that that it is hydrostatic and it is meaningless is not true. sent18: if the WWW does not scrabble Florio that it boondoggles and does not jell vise is wrong. sent19: the fact that the name does not jell Nothofagus is right. sent20: the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire.

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

there exists something such that the fact that it does not abuse Schleiden and it does abuse brass is wrong.

(Ex): ¬(¬{ES}x & {FQ}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire but it does jell vise. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not hydrostatic and it is meaningless. sent2: if something gels vise that it is not a Titanosauridae and does abuse Lancashire is not true. sent3: that the belly abuses Lancashire is true if there exists something such that the fact that it is not hydrostatic and it is meaningless does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does abuse Lancashire and does jell vise is not correct. sent5: something does not abuse Lancashire if the fact that it is not a Titanosauridae and it does abuse Lancashire is not right. sent6: the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire if the belly abuse Lancashire. sent7: there exists something such that that it is both not hydrostatic and meaningless is not correct. sent8: if the fact that the fact that either the WWW is a kind of a Titanosauridae or it is not a kind of a boondoggle or both hold does not hold then the belly is not a kind of a Titanosauridae. sent9: something does not scrabble Florio if that it is a kind of a cape and it does scrabble Florio is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that it is factorial the fact that the baseball is a cape and scrabbles Florio is not correct. sent11: the belly does abuse Lancashire if there exists something such that it is hydrostatic. sent12: the elapid is both not piscatorial and not romaic if the name does not jell Nothofagus. sent13: if that the WWW is a boondoggle that does not jell vise is wrong the thecodont jell vise. sent14: if that the WWW is a kind of a cape and/or it is factorial is not true then it does not scrabble Florio. sent15: if the elapid is not romaic the Crown is a kind of a factorial that intumesces. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that that it is not a kind of a motorman and it is not meaningful is not incorrect is not right the brass is a speakeasy. sent17: there exists something such that that it is hydrostatic and it is meaningless is not true. sent18: if the WWW does not scrabble Florio that it boondoggles and does not jell vise is wrong. sent19: the fact that the name does not jell Nothofagus is right. sent20: the thecodont does not abuse Lancashire. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent3 -> int1: the belly does abuse Lancashire.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the mamoncillo is a concourse and it does abuse sackcloth.

({C}{b} & {D}{b})

sent1: the mamoncillo does abuse sackcloth. sent2: the shoebill is a falsehood or it is not a Epirus or both if it is long-distance. sent3: The sackcloth does abuse mamoncillo. sent4: the shoebill is long-distance. sent5: the shoebill is a falsehood and/or it is a Epirus. sent6: if the mamoncillo is not long-distance the shoebill does abuse sackcloth. sent7: the stock does not jell vacationing if either it is a kind of a concourse or it is not a kind of a tonsil or both. sent8: if the shoebill is a falsehood or it is not a Epirus or both then it is not a ukase. sent9: the shoebill does not abuse sackcloth if it is not a Epirus. sent10: if the shoebill is long-distance either it is a falsehood or it is a Epirus or both.

sent1: {D}{b} sent2: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: {AC}{aa} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent7: ({C}{bf} v ¬{HP}{bf}) -> ¬{IG}{bf} sent8: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the mamoncillo is a concourse and it does abuse sackcloth. ; $context$ = sent1: the mamoncillo does abuse sackcloth. sent2: the shoebill is a falsehood or it is not a Epirus or both if it is long-distance. sent3: The sackcloth does abuse mamoncillo. sent4: the shoebill is long-distance. sent5: the shoebill is a falsehood and/or it is a Epirus. sent6: if the mamoncillo is not long-distance the shoebill does abuse sackcloth. sent7: the stock does not jell vacationing if either it is a kind of a concourse or it is not a kind of a tonsil or both. sent8: if the shoebill is a falsehood or it is not a Epirus or both then it is not a ukase. sent9: the shoebill does not abuse sackcloth if it is not a Epirus. sent10: if the shoebill is long-distance either it is a falsehood or it is a Epirus or both. ; $proof$ =

sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the shoebill is a falsehood and/or it is not a Epirus.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the shoebill is not a ukase.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a swinger and scrabbles Menninger is not right it does challenge does not hold.

¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)

sent1: if the everyman is a swinger then it is a pentathlon. sent2: the everyman does challenge if the fact that it is not a swinger and it does scrabble Menninger is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a swinger and it does scrabble Menninger then it does challenge. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a yellowtail and scrabbles hippoboscid does not hold it is lower-class. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not shank and is civil is incorrect then it does abuse amazon. sent6: if the everyman is a kind of a swinger it is a challenge. sent7: the everyman does challenge if it is not a swinger and does scrabble Menninger. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a swinger and scrabbles Menninger is not correct then it is a challenge. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Menninger it is a challenge. sent10: there is something such that if it is a kind of a swinger then it is a challenge. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it is a Schlesinger and it is syntactic hold is incorrect it does jell Calopogon.

sent1: {AA}{aa} -> {DB}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{AM}x & {AC}x) -> {D}x sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{JG}x & {IS}x) -> {BL}x sent6: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent7: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): ¬({JE}x & {GF}x) -> {CA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a swinger and scrabbles Menninger is not right it does challenge does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the everyman is a swinger then it is a pentathlon. sent2: the everyman does challenge if the fact that it is not a swinger and it does scrabble Menninger is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a swinger and it does scrabble Menninger then it does challenge. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a yellowtail and scrabbles hippoboscid does not hold it is lower-class. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not shank and is civil is incorrect then it does abuse amazon. sent6: if the everyman is a kind of a swinger it is a challenge. sent7: the everyman does challenge if it is not a swinger and does scrabble Menninger. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a swinger and scrabbles Menninger is not correct then it is a challenge. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Menninger it is a challenge. sent10: there is something such that if it is a kind of a swinger then it is a challenge. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it is a Schlesinger and it is syntactic hold is incorrect it does jell Calopogon. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it does jell hysterocatalepsy and tucks narthex.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)

sent1: something does scrabble multiple and it is a ritual if the fact that it does not direct is correct. sent2: something is dorsal and it is a Cyprinodontidae if the fact that it is non-arsenious is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a serology then it is a strophe and discontinues. sent4: there is something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it gels hysterocatalepsy. sent5: something is electrochemical and is a submission if it is not disjunct. sent6: if the shaver does not abuse stripe it tucks narthex. sent7: something gels hysterocatalepsy and does tuck narthex if it abuses stripe. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it does tuck narthex.

sent1: (x): ¬{CQ}x -> ({HG}x & {CN}x) sent2: (x): ¬{AR}x -> ({BK}x & {AJ}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{HU}x -> ({BJ}x & {CE}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent5: (x): ¬{BT}x -> ({JJ}x & {K}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x

there exists something such that if it is not arsenious then it is both dorsal and a Cyprinodontidae.

(Ex): ¬{AR}x -> ({BK}x & {AJ}x)

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it does jell hysterocatalepsy and tucks narthex. ; $context$ = sent1: something does scrabble multiple and it is a ritual if the fact that it does not direct is correct. sent2: something is dorsal and it is a Cyprinodontidae if the fact that it is non-arsenious is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a serology then it is a strophe and discontinues. sent4: there is something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it gels hysterocatalepsy. sent5: something is electrochemical and is a submission if it is not disjunct. sent6: if the shaver does not abuse stripe it tucks narthex. sent7: something gels hysterocatalepsy and does tuck narthex if it abuses stripe. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not abuse stripe then it does tuck narthex. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there are proconsular and forgetful things is wrong.

¬((Ex): ({A}x & {B}x))

sent1: something is a pug and it is elementary. sent2: there is something such that it is a Reich. sent3: the burner is forgetful. sent4: the burner is a Reich. sent5: the burner abuses conductress. sent6: the conductress is forgetful. sent7: the cleaver is forgetful. sent8: there exists something such that it does heed. sent9: the burner is proconsular. sent10: something is a kind of a Englishwoman and it is extensile. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is cauline is not incorrect. sent12: the burner is archosaurian. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a Englishwoman and it is a caddis-fly. sent14: there are lively things.

sent1: (Ex): ({EH}x & {FR}x) sent2: (Ex): {DR}x sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {DR}{a} sent5: {IE}{a} sent6: {B}{hp} sent7: {B}{fk} sent8: (Ex): {G}x sent9: {A}{a} sent10: (Ex): ({GK}x & {BA}x) sent11: (Ex): {IG}x sent12: {M}{a} sent13: (Ex): ({GK}x & {BQ}x) sent14: (Ex): {DG}x

there is something such that it is a Reich and does abuse frontispiece.

(Ex): ({DR}x & {EO}x)

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that there are proconsular and forgetful things is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a pug and it is elementary. sent2: there is something such that it is a Reich. sent3: the burner is forgetful. sent4: the burner is a Reich. sent5: the burner abuses conductress. sent6: the conductress is forgetful. sent7: the cleaver is forgetful. sent8: there exists something such that it does heed. sent9: the burner is proconsular. sent10: something is a kind of a Englishwoman and it is extensile. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is cauline is not incorrect. sent12: the burner is archosaurian. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a Englishwoman and it is a caddis-fly. sent14: there are lively things. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent3 -> int1: the burner is both not non-proconsular and not non-forgetful.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the Dickensianness occurs but the study does not occur does not hold.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

sent1: if the tucking porridge happens the Dickensianness but not the study occurs. sent2: the fact that the Dickensianness occurs and the study does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the extraction does not occur the tucking porridge and the whitelash happens. sent4: if the tucking pebble happens the gelling flecainide does not occur and the producing happens. sent5: the extraction does not occur if the fact that the unimpressiveness and the extraction happens is not right. sent6: that both the Dickensianness and the studying occurs is incorrect. sent7: that the non-impressiveness and the extraction occurs is false if the gelling flecainide does not occur.

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

the Dickensianness occurs but the studying does not occur.

({AA} & ¬{AB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the Dickensianness occurs but the study does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tucking porridge happens the Dickensianness but not the study occurs. sent2: the fact that the Dickensianness occurs and the study does not occur is not correct. sent3: if the extraction does not occur the tucking porridge and the whitelash happens. sent4: if the tucking pebble happens the gelling flecainide does not occur and the producing happens. sent5: the extraction does not occur if the fact that the unimpressiveness and the extraction happens is not right. sent6: that both the Dickensianness and the studying occurs is incorrect. sent7: that the non-impressiveness and the extraction occurs is false if the gelling flecainide does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that not the reorganizing but the waxing occurs is not right.

¬(¬{C} & {D})

sent1: the binary happens. sent2: that the reorganizing does not occur hold if the hemiparasiticness and/or the rendering occurs. sent3: the hemiparasiticness occurs. sent4: the fact that the Bruneianness happens is right. sent5: if that the binary occurs is correct the waxing occurs and the dash does not occur. sent6: the dashing does not occur. sent7: the cirrus and/or the precentorship happens. sent8: the confrontationalness does not occur.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that not the reorganizing but the waxing occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the binary happens. sent2: that the reorganizing does not occur hold if the hemiparasiticness and/or the rendering occurs. sent3: the hemiparasiticness occurs. sent4: the fact that the Bruneianness happens is right. sent5: if that the binary occurs is correct the waxing occurs and the dash does not occur. sent6: the dashing does not occur. sent7: the cirrus and/or the precentorship happens. sent8: the confrontationalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: either the hemiparasiticness occurs or the rendering occurs or both.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the reorganizing does not occur.; sent5 & sent1 -> int3: the waxing occurs but the dash does not occur.; int3 -> int4: that the waxing occurs is right.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the oleaster is not a salp but it whips does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

sent1: the oleaster is a whip if it is unobtrusive. sent2: if the oleaster is a kind of a Emberizidae then that it is unobtrusive is not false. sent3: the oleaster is unobtrusive if it is sure. sent4: if something is unobtrusive then it is not a salp and is a whip. sent5: either the oleaster is sure or it is a Emberizidae or both.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = that the oleaster is not a salp but it whips does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the oleaster is a whip if it is unobtrusive. sent2: if the oleaster is a kind of a Emberizidae then that it is unobtrusive is not false. sent3: the oleaster is unobtrusive if it is sure. sent4: if something is unobtrusive then it is not a salp and is a whip. sent5: either the oleaster is sure or it is a Emberizidae or both. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> int1: if the oleaster is unobtrusive then it is both not a salp and a whip.; sent5 & sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the oleaster is unobtrusive.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the twitterer does not jell inutility.

¬{B}{a}

sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. sent5: if something is not surgical then it is a chlorofucin and it is irremovable. sent6: if something does not approximate or it does not foreclose or both then it does not foreclose. sent7: something is not surgical if it does not tuck sloping and does not scrabble discernability. sent8: if the hydroxychloroquine is irremovable that the introitus is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not right. sent9: everything does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability.

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

the twitterer does jell inutility.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the twitterer does not jell inutility. ; $context$ = sent1: the Oregonian forecloses. sent2: something does not miscarry if it is an orthodontist. sent3: the introitus does not approximate if that it is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not correct. sent4: the Oregonian is an orthodontist and forecloses. sent5: if something is not surgical then it is a chlorofucin and it is irremovable. sent6: if something does not approximate or it does not foreclose or both then it does not foreclose. sent7: something is not surgical if it does not tuck sloping and does not scrabble discernability. sent8: if the hydroxychloroquine is irremovable that the introitus is both not a bronco and a hastiness is not right. sent9: everything does not tuck sloping and it does not scrabble discernability. ; $proof$ =

sent2 -> int1: if the Oregonian is an orthodontist then it does not miscarry.; sent4 -> int2: the Oregonian is an orthodontist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Oregonian does not miscarry.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the buttocks is not brave is true.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: the closer does not abuse saskatoon if the fact that it scrabbles indecorum hold. sent2: the tetranychid is not a kind of a Onsager if it gels teacart and it does not scrabble droshky. sent3: the buttocks burrows but it is not a Redford. sent4: if the buttocks is a kind of dyslexic thing that does jell easel it is not a brave. sent5: The teacart does jell buttocks. sent6: the buttocks does not jell easel. sent7: the buttocks does burglarize. sent8: the buttocks is not voluble if it is brave and it is a meatloaf. sent9: if something that is dyslexic does jell easel it is not a brave. sent10: if something is dyslexic but it does not jell easel then it is not a brave. sent11: the aposelene is a Dawson and is not dyslexic. sent12: if something that is dyslexic does not jell teacart then the fact that it does not jell easel is not false. sent13: if something is a kind of a bassoon that gels Twelfthtide then it is not a kind of a solitary. sent14: the Senhor does not jell easel. sent15: the buttocks is dyslexic but it does not jell easel if it gels teacart.

sent1: {FE}{hl} -> ¬{GI}{hl} sent2: ({A}{dh} & ¬{FM}{dh}) -> ¬{JG}{dh} sent3: ({BB}{aa} & ¬{CJ}{aa}) sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: {AC}{ab} sent6: ¬{AB}{aa} sent7: {CS}{aa} sent8: ({B}{aa} & {DC}{aa}) -> ¬{GU}{aa} sent9: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: ({DS}{eq} & ¬{AA}{eq}) sent12: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent13: (x): ({D}x & {T}x) -> ¬{EJ}x sent14: ¬{AB}{an} sent15: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the buttocks is not brave is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the closer does not abuse saskatoon if the fact that it scrabbles indecorum hold. sent2: the tetranychid is not a kind of a Onsager if it gels teacart and it does not scrabble droshky. sent3: the buttocks burrows but it is not a Redford. sent4: if the buttocks is a kind of dyslexic thing that does jell easel it is not a brave. sent5: The teacart does jell buttocks. sent6: the buttocks does not jell easel. sent7: the buttocks does burglarize. sent8: the buttocks is not voluble if it is brave and it is a meatloaf. sent9: if something that is dyslexic does jell easel it is not a brave. sent10: if something is dyslexic but it does not jell easel then it is not a brave. sent11: the aposelene is a Dawson and is not dyslexic. sent12: if something that is dyslexic does not jell teacart then the fact that it does not jell easel is not false. sent13: if something is a kind of a bassoon that gels Twelfthtide then it is not a kind of a solitary. sent14: the Senhor does not jell easel. sent15: the buttocks is dyslexic but it does not jell easel if it gels teacart. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: if the buttocks is dyslexic but it does not jell easel it is not a brave.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the cuticle is not a Greece.

¬{A}{a}

sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. sent4: the cuticle is a salp. sent5: the coordinator is not stingy. sent6: everything is a velleity and it is not a kind of a brim. sent7: the fact that the cackler is nascent but not a gravity does not hold if the fact that the anemone buffets is correct. sent8: if that the cuticle does abuse Okinawa but it is not nascent is not right it does not abuse Okinawa. sent9: if something is an afterthought it does not scrabble cleavers and is an ulcer. sent10: the anemone buffets if the coordinator is not a buffets but it is a kind of an ulcer. sent11: if a velleity does not brim it is not a lodestar. sent12: if the coordinator is not stingy then the fact that it scrabbles strip and/or it is a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent13: The Okinawa abuses cuticle. sent14: the cuticle abuses Okinawa. sent15: something that does not abuse Okinawa is a nod and a Greece. sent16: if the dovekie is south the coordinator is an afterthought. sent17: the cuticle is not accusative. sent18: something is not non-south and it does jell Cercidiphyllum if the fact that it is not a lodestar is true.

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

the cuticle is a nod and it is a kind of a salp.

({BI}{a} & {D}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the cuticle is not a Greece. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a salp or does not abuse Okinawa or both the cuticle does not abuse Okinawa. sent2: if that either something does scrabble strip or it is a Kurdish or both is not right it is not a buffet. sent3: the cuticle is a kind of a gravity and it is a salp. sent4: the cuticle is a salp. sent5: the coordinator is not stingy. sent6: everything is a velleity and it is not a kind of a brim. sent7: the fact that the cackler is nascent but not a gravity does not hold if the fact that the anemone buffets is correct. sent8: if that the cuticle does abuse Okinawa but it is not nascent is not right it does not abuse Okinawa. sent9: if something is an afterthought it does not scrabble cleavers and is an ulcer. sent10: the anemone buffets if the coordinator is not a buffets but it is a kind of an ulcer. sent11: if a velleity does not brim it is not a lodestar. sent12: if the coordinator is not stingy then the fact that it scrabbles strip and/or it is a kind of a Kurdish does not hold. sent13: The Okinawa abuses cuticle. sent14: the cuticle abuses Okinawa. sent15: something that does not abuse Okinawa is a nod and a Greece. sent16: if the dovekie is south the coordinator is an afterthought. sent17: the cuticle is not accusative. sent18: something is not non-south and it does jell Cercidiphyllum if the fact that it is not a lodestar is true. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuticle is a kind of a Greece.; assump1 & sent14 -> int1: the cuticle is a Greece and it abuses Okinawa.; sent3 -> int2: the fact that the cuticle is a kind of a gravity is correct.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

¬{B}

sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur.

sent1: ¬{E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent2: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent3: ¬{BM} -> ¬({H} & ¬{BE}) sent4: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent5: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent6: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent9: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent10: (¬{G} v {I}) -> ¬{G} sent11: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{P} sent13: ¬({GN} & ¬{BR}) -> ¬{GD} sent14: ({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent15: ¬(¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{HL} sent16: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent17: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent18: ¬{A} sent19: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B}

the scrabbling breadth happens.

{B}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs does not hold if the hailstorm does not occur. sent2: both the mineralness and the scrabbling lapin happens if the interconnection does not occur. sent3: the fact that the scrabbling chartreuse happens but the intrapulmonariness does not occur is not correct if the Exodus does not occur. sent4: if the lapse does not occur then the hailstorm does not occur and the manifest does not occur. sent5: if the goldbrick does not occur and the advanced does not occur then the astringing does not occur. sent6: if that the territoriality but not the abusing insidiousness occurs is incorrect the territoriality does not occur. sent7: if the phosphorousness does not occur then that the noncollapsibleness occurs and the baffle does not occur is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the scrabbling breadth and the phosphorousness occurs is not incorrect if the territoriality does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the phosphorousness does not occur or the scrabbling breadth does not occur or both is wrong if the territoriality does not occur. sent10: if the lapse does not occur and/or the continentness occurs the lapse does not occur. sent11: the scrabbling breadth does not occur if that the noncollapsibleness but not the baffle happens does not hold. sent12: the interconnection does not occur. sent13: the film does not occur if the fact that the seediness happens but the gelling enol does not occur does not hold. sent14: if the mineral but not the astringing occurs then the shag does not occur. sent15: the Numidian does not occur if that the phosphorousness does not occur and/or the scrabbling breadth does not occur is not true. sent16: that the shagging does not occur yields that the continent happens and the scrabbling chartreuse occurs. sent17: that the hailstorm does not occur brings about that the territoriality does not occur and the abusing insidiousness does not occur. sent18: the phosphorousness does not occur. sent19: if the noncollapsibleness does not occur the scrabbling breadth does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent18 -> int1: that the noncollapsibleness happens but the baffle does not occur is not correct.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if the fact that it is a isometric and/or it is not integral is false then it is not a psychotic.

(Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x

sent1: there is something such that if that either it is a isometric or it is not integral or both does not hold then it is a psychotic. sent2: if that something abuses agnosia and/or is not a mapping is wrong it does not scrabble myxomycete. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a isometric and/or it is not an integral that it is not a psychotic is not wrong. sent4: if either the Inca is not non-isometric or it is not integral or both it is not a kind of a psychotic. sent5: the Inca is not a kind of a psychotic if the fact that it either is a kind of a isometric or is not a kind of an integral or both is not right. sent6: if the fact that the Inca is a henry and/or not an integral is false then it is not an inpatient. sent7: that if that something is a isometric and/or it does not scrabble coupon does not hold it is not resolute hold. sent8: there is something such that if that it is Manchurian or it does not tuck liturgy or both is wrong then it does not happen. sent9: if the fact that something does maintain or is not a applique or both is incorrect then it does not jell disbeliever. sent10: if the fact that the Inca is isometric or it is an integral or both is not correct then it is not a psychotic. sent11: if that either the Inca is a isometric or it is not an integral or both is false it is a psychotic. sent12: if that either the Inca is not non-isometric or it is not hexangular or both is false it does not abuse agnosia. sent13: if that the Inca is a organification and/or it is not a psychotic is not true then it is a laugh. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is a isometric or it is a kind of an integral or both is not right it is not a kind of a psychotic. sent15: if the curmudgeon gels Teresa or it is not a kind of a psychotic or both then it is not unfashionable.

sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): ¬({FE}x v ¬{AT}x) -> ¬{HL}x sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: ¬({BG}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{CH}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{EB}x) -> ¬{DP}x sent8: (Ex): ¬({JG}x v ¬{IB}x) -> ¬{HF}x sent9: (x): ¬({BU}x v ¬{GM}x) -> ¬{IA}x sent10: ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{HP}{aa}) -> ¬{FE}{aa} sent13: ¬({JJ}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) -> {FK}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ({CT}{fr} v ¬{B}{fr}) -> ¬{GH}{fr}

the disbeliever is not resolute if that it is a isometric or does not scrabble coupon or both is not true.

¬({AA}{ed} v ¬{EB}{ed}) -> ¬{DP}{ed}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is a isometric and/or it is not integral is false then it is not a psychotic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if that either it is a isometric or it is not integral or both does not hold then it is a psychotic. sent2: if that something abuses agnosia and/or is not a mapping is wrong it does not scrabble myxomycete. sent3: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a isometric and/or it is not an integral that it is not a psychotic is not wrong. sent4: if either the Inca is not non-isometric or it is not integral or both it is not a kind of a psychotic. sent5: the Inca is not a kind of a psychotic if the fact that it either is a kind of a isometric or is not a kind of an integral or both is not right. sent6: if the fact that the Inca is a henry and/or not an integral is false then it is not an inpatient. sent7: that if that something is a isometric and/or it does not scrabble coupon does not hold it is not resolute hold. sent8: there is something such that if that it is Manchurian or it does not tuck liturgy or both is wrong then it does not happen. sent9: if the fact that something does maintain or is not a applique or both is incorrect then it does not jell disbeliever. sent10: if the fact that the Inca is isometric or it is an integral or both is not correct then it is not a psychotic. sent11: if that either the Inca is a isometric or it is not an integral or both is false it is a psychotic. sent12: if that either the Inca is not non-isometric or it is not hexangular or both is false it does not abuse agnosia. sent13: if that the Inca is a organification and/or it is not a psychotic is not true then it is a laugh. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is a isometric or it is a kind of an integral or both is not right it is not a kind of a psychotic. sent15: if the curmudgeon gels Teresa or it is not a kind of a psychotic or both then it is not unfashionable. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the gneiss is unwieldy.

{B}{b}

sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy and it is coital if it is non-fearful. sent4: that the analyst is a kind of an extension and it abuses heterocycle is not true. sent5: the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent6: if something is non-oneiric the fact that it is intramuscular and it is not a kind of an extension does not hold. sent7: the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent8: there exists something such that it is unpublishable. sent9: the mandarin is unwieldy if the analyst is unwieldy. sent10: something is not oneiric if it is unwieldy.

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

the fact that the mandarin is a kind of intramuscular thing that is not an extension is not correct.

¬({CS}{iu} & ¬{AA}{iu})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the gneiss is unwieldy. ; $context$ = sent1: if the analyst does abuse heterocycle the gneiss is unwieldy. sent2: the fact that the gneiss is fearful thing that is not sclerotic is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not unpublishable is not correct. sent3: something is unwieldy and it is coital if it is non-fearful. sent4: that the analyst is a kind of an extension and it abuses heterocycle is not true. sent5: the fact that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent6: if something is non-oneiric the fact that it is intramuscular and it is not a kind of an extension does not hold. sent7: the gneiss is unwieldy if that the analyst is an extension and does not abuse heterocycle is not right. sent8: there exists something such that it is unpublishable. sent9: the mandarin is unwieldy if the analyst is unwieldy. sent10: something is not oneiric if it is unwieldy. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens.

({A} & {B})

sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does not occur the nonreversibleness does not occur. sent6: the wait happens. sent7: the androgynousness and the typography occurs. sent8: the resolution does not occur if the fact that the stunner or the exaggeration or both occurs is not right. sent9: the spiral happens. sent10: the patching occurs and the path happens. sent11: the preparation occurs. sent12: the gelling Poussin happens. sent13: the fact that the stunner happens and/or the exaggeration occurs does not hold if the abusing cardiography does not occur. sent14: the consisting happens. sent15: the spending and the cosmetology happens. sent16: the pectinealness occurs and the flashflood occurs. sent17: the nonreversibleness occurs. sent18: the scrabbling ripple happens.

sent1: {EQ} sent2: ({HS} & {EM}) sent3: {GC} sent4: {HK} sent5: (¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent6: {U} sent7: ({CP} & {JF}) sent8: ¬({E} v {F}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {GG} sent10: ({BI} & {BR}) sent11: {BO} sent12: {GF} sent13: ¬{H} -> ¬({E} v {F}) sent14: {DS} sent15: ({HO} & {CT}) sent16: ({FE} & {GJ}) sent17: {B} sent18: {A}

the eyeful happens.

{EN}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the scrabbling ripple occurs and the nonreversibleness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the Byzantineness occurs. sent2: both the salvage and the asclepiadaceousness happens. sent3: the mugging occurs. sent4: the tucking Rubinstein happens. sent5: if the resolution does not occur and the Spanishness does not occur the nonreversibleness does not occur. sent6: the wait happens. sent7: the androgynousness and the typography occurs. sent8: the resolution does not occur if the fact that the stunner or the exaggeration or both occurs is not right. sent9: the spiral happens. sent10: the patching occurs and the path happens. sent11: the preparation occurs. sent12: the gelling Poussin happens. sent13: the fact that the stunner happens and/or the exaggeration occurs does not hold if the abusing cardiography does not occur. sent14: the consisting happens. sent15: the spending and the cosmetology happens. sent16: the pectinealness occurs and the flashflood occurs. sent17: the nonreversibleness occurs. sent18: the scrabbling ripple happens. ; $proof$ =

sent18 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the Irani is not impersonal.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if something is not communal it is not actinometric and it is not psychometric. sent5: the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful. sent6: something is a kind of non-communal thing that is not impersonal if it is not an approaching. sent7: the rejection is communal but it is not an approaching if the slag is not a crayfish. sent8: the salami is digital if the fact that it is not digital and it does not abuse imposture does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not digital but it is a kind of a petty is false then it is not a crayfish. sent10: the rattle is a kind of non-actinometric thing that does not cricket. sent11: the Irani is both not a adrenarche and not scalar. sent12: the Irani is not actinometric. sent13: if something does guard then that it is a kind of non-digital thing that does not abuse imposture is not true. sent14: if something is not non-actinometric but non-restful then it is not impersonal. sent15: something is not a kind of an approaching if it is not an approaching and/or is a kind of a crayfish. sent16: the fact that the rejection is not a crayfish is false. sent17: the salami is a guard.

sent1: (¬{BG}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{CC}x) sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {F}{c} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent10: (¬{AA}{aj} & ¬{HR}{aj}) sent11: (¬{CE}{aa} & ¬{BB}{aa}) sent12: ¬{AA}{aa} sent13: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): (¬{C}x v {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent16: {D}{a} sent17: {H}{c}

the lagan is not actinometric and it is not psychometric.

(¬{AA}{o} & ¬{CC}{o})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the Irani is not impersonal. ; $context$ = sent1: the Irani is both not febrile and not actinometric. sent2: if the Irani is both actinometric and not restful then the fact that it is not impersonal is correct. sent3: if something is not actinometric and it is not restful it is not impersonal. sent4: if something is not communal it is not actinometric and it is not psychometric. sent5: the Irani is not actinometric and it is not restful. sent6: something is a kind of non-communal thing that is not impersonal if it is not an approaching. sent7: the rejection is communal but it is not an approaching if the slag is not a crayfish. sent8: the salami is digital if the fact that it is not digital and it does not abuse imposture does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something is not digital but it is a kind of a petty is false then it is not a crayfish. sent10: the rattle is a kind of non-actinometric thing that does not cricket. sent11: the Irani is both not a adrenarche and not scalar. sent12: the Irani is not actinometric. sent13: if something does guard then that it is a kind of non-digital thing that does not abuse imposture is not true. sent14: if something is not non-actinometric but non-restful then it is not impersonal. sent15: something is not a kind of an approaching if it is not an approaching and/or is a kind of a crayfish. sent16: the fact that the rejection is not a crayfish is false. sent17: the salami is a guard. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: the Irani is not impersonal if that it is not actinometric but non-restful is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the skate is not a kind of a civilian.

¬{B}{aa}

sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the skate is not a kind of a civilian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that something is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not incorrect is incorrect it is not a civilian. sent2: everything does not jell Segway. sent3: if that something does not jell Segway hold then that it is non-unusual thing that gels Dijon is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

sent3 -> int1: if the skate does not jell Segway the fact that it is not unusual and it does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent2 -> int2: the fact that the skate does not jell Segway is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the skate is a kind of non-unusual thing that does jell Dijon is not correct.; sent1 -> int4: if that the skate is not unusual but it does jell Dijon is not true then it is not a kind of a civilian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the colored abuses keratoconus hold.

{E}{c}

sent1: if the scorpaenoid is not nonwoody the ginseng is a kind of a importunity. sent2: if the colored is not nonwoody the ginseng abuses keratoconus. sent3: if that the scorpaenoid is a importunity and is not a kind of a Hungarian does not hold then the colored does abuse keratoconus. sent4: the scorpaenoid abuses keratoconus. sent5: if there are Hungarian things that the waterproof is involuntary and not Hungarian is not right. sent6: the ginseng is a kind of a importunity if that the scorpaenoid is nonwoody but it is not Wagnerian is wrong. sent7: the trestle does abuse keratoconus. sent8: that the scorpaenoid is not nonwoody is wrong. sent9: the scorpaenoid does abuse keratoconus and it is a kind of a importunity. sent10: the ginseng is Wagnerian and nonwoody. sent11: that the ginseng abuses keratoconus but it is not a Wagnerian is false. sent12: the scorpaenoid does abuse keratoconus if the fact that the ginseng is a kind of a importunity that is not nonwoody is not true. sent13: the plantain does abuse keratoconus. sent14: the fact that the ginseng is nonwoody but it is not a importunity does not hold. sent15: the scorpaenoid is regressive. sent16: if that that the ginseng is a kind of a importunity and is not a Hungarian is not right is correct then the scorpaenoid is a Wagnerian. sent17: the ginseng is a importunity.

sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{c} -> {E}{a} sent3: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {E}{c} sent4: {E}{b} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬({GK}{dq} & ¬{C}{dq}) sent6: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent7: {E}{fo} sent8: {B}{b} sent9: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent12: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent13: {E}{ah} sent14: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent15: {CG}{b} sent16: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {A}{b} sent17: {D}{a}

that the waterproof is involuntary but not a Hungarian does not hold.

¬({GK}{dq} & ¬{C}{dq})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the colored abuses keratoconus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scorpaenoid is not nonwoody the ginseng is a kind of a importunity. sent2: if the colored is not nonwoody the ginseng abuses keratoconus. sent3: if that the scorpaenoid is a importunity and is not a kind of a Hungarian does not hold then the colored does abuse keratoconus. sent4: the scorpaenoid abuses keratoconus. sent5: if there are Hungarian things that the waterproof is involuntary and not Hungarian is not right. sent6: the ginseng is a kind of a importunity if that the scorpaenoid is nonwoody but it is not Wagnerian is wrong. sent7: the trestle does abuse keratoconus. sent8: that the scorpaenoid is not nonwoody is wrong. sent9: the scorpaenoid does abuse keratoconus and it is a kind of a importunity. sent10: the ginseng is Wagnerian and nonwoody. sent11: that the ginseng abuses keratoconus but it is not a Wagnerian is false. sent12: the scorpaenoid does abuse keratoconus if the fact that the ginseng is a kind of a importunity that is not nonwoody is not true. sent13: the plantain does abuse keratoconus. sent14: the fact that the ginseng is nonwoody but it is not a importunity does not hold. sent15: the scorpaenoid is regressive. sent16: if that that the ginseng is a kind of a importunity and is not a Hungarian is not right is correct then the scorpaenoid is a Wagnerian. sent17: the ginseng is a importunity. ; $proof$ =

sent10 -> int1: the ginseng is a Wagnerian.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon then that it is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch is wrong.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a GIGO is not incorrect then that it is both not a Bhaga and non-collective is not correct. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Golan the fact that it is not a Khamti and it is not dioecious is not correct. sent3: there is something such that if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is correct then it is not a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon the fact that it is not a scorpaenoid and gels hotchpotch is false. sent5: the fact that that something is not a kind of a mill-hand and it is not a pas is not incorrect is incorrect if that it does not jell hotchpotch is right. sent6: there is something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon then the fact that it is a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch is incorrect. sent7: that the reincarnation is not a rag and it is not Somalian is not right if the fact that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not incorrect. sent8: if the hotchpotch does not scrabble Saskatoon that it is a kind of a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch does not hold. sent9: the fact that the hotchpotch is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is right if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not false. sent10: the fact that the hotchpotch is not a scorpaenoid and does jell hotchpotch is wrong if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not false. sent11: that that the hotchpotch does not scrabble Malthus and does not scrabble Saskatoon is false hold if it is not a GIGO. sent12: if the hotchpotch does not scrabble Saskatoon then that it is not a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is incorrect. sent13: there exists something such that if the fact that it does scrabble Saskatoon is not incorrect then that it is not a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch does not hold. sent14: if the hotchpotch does scrabble Saskatoon then the fact that it is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is not true. sent15: there is something such that if it is not odds the fact that it does not abuse reincarnation and it is not existential does not hold.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{FT}x -> ¬(¬{AK}x & ¬{BD}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{GN}x -> ¬(¬{AD}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{IK}x & ¬{FL}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{A}{gn} -> ¬(¬{CI}{gn} & ¬{GE}{gn}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{FT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AI}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{FB}x -> ¬(¬{BN}x & ¬{FA}x)

that the cleaver is not a mill-hand and it is not a kind of a pas is incorrect if the fact that it does not jell hotchpotch is true.

¬{AB}{ba} -> ¬(¬{IK}{ba} & ¬{FL}{ba})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon then that it is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a GIGO is not incorrect then that it is both not a Bhaga and non-collective is not correct. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Golan the fact that it is not a Khamti and it is not dioecious is not correct. sent3: there is something such that if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is correct then it is not a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon the fact that it is not a scorpaenoid and gels hotchpotch is false. sent5: the fact that that something is not a kind of a mill-hand and it is not a pas is not incorrect is incorrect if that it does not jell hotchpotch is right. sent6: there is something such that if it does not scrabble Saskatoon then the fact that it is a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch is incorrect. sent7: that the reincarnation is not a rag and it is not Somalian is not right if the fact that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not incorrect. sent8: if the hotchpotch does not scrabble Saskatoon that it is a kind of a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch does not hold. sent9: the fact that the hotchpotch is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is right if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not false. sent10: the fact that the hotchpotch is not a scorpaenoid and does jell hotchpotch is wrong if that it does not scrabble Saskatoon is not false. sent11: that that the hotchpotch does not scrabble Malthus and does not scrabble Saskatoon is false hold if it is not a GIGO. sent12: if the hotchpotch does not scrabble Saskatoon then that it is not a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is incorrect. sent13: there exists something such that if the fact that it does scrabble Saskatoon is not incorrect then that it is not a scorpaenoid and it does not jell hotchpotch does not hold. sent14: if the hotchpotch does scrabble Saskatoon then the fact that it is not a kind of a scorpaenoid and does not jell hotchpotch is not true. sent15: there is something such that if it is not odds the fact that it does not abuse reincarnation and it is not existential does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold.

{B}

sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: if the diastolicness does not occur then the swoosh occurs and/or the splashing does not occur. sent5: the castigation does not occur. sent6: if that that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwardingness does not occur is not true is correct then the mouse does not occur. sent7: that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is brought about by that the gelling agelessness happens but the referral does not occur. sent8: if the Jacobean occurs then that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwarding does not occur is wrong. sent9: if that the fact that the scrabbling mastery does not occur and the egging does not occur is true is not correct the Jacobeanness occurs. sent10: if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. sent11: if not the gelling agelessness but the referral occurs then the scrabbling magnetite does not occur. sent12: the scrabbling magnetite occurs if that the contextualness does not occur and the polytheisticness does not occur is false. sent13: the non-asterismalness is brought about by that the monumentalness does not occur and the abusing optimist does not occur. sent14: the solving does not occur and the castigation does not occur. sent15: that the digitalness happens is prevented by that the captioning happens and/or that the digitalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that both the non-contextualness and the non-polytheisticness occurs is false if the fictionalization does not occur. sent17: if the mouse does not occur both the abusing Dracocephalum and the caption occurs. sent18: the polytheisticness does not occur.

sent1: ¬{I} -> (¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: ¬{DA} sent4: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent5: ¬{EE} sent6: ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent8: {O} -> ¬(¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{P}) -> {O} sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) -> {B} sent13: (¬{AC} & ¬{FH}) -> ¬{EP} sent14: (¬{DJ} & ¬{EE}) sent15: ({J} v ¬{I}) -> ¬{I} sent16: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent17: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {J}) sent18: ¬{A}

the scrabbling magnetite happens.

{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = that the scrabbling magnetite happens hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tonic does not occur and the diastolicness does not occur hold if the digitalness does not occur. sent2: the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur. sent3: the recidivism does not occur. sent4: if the diastolicness does not occur then the swoosh occurs and/or the splashing does not occur. sent5: the castigation does not occur. sent6: if that that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwardingness does not occur is not true is correct then the mouse does not occur. sent7: that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is brought about by that the gelling agelessness happens but the referral does not occur. sent8: if the Jacobean occurs then that the scrabbling braid does not occur and the forwarding does not occur is wrong. sent9: if that the fact that the scrabbling mastery does not occur and the egging does not occur is true is not correct the Jacobeanness occurs. sent10: if the gelling agelessness does not occur and the referral does not occur the fact that the scrabbling magnetite does not occur is right. sent11: if not the gelling agelessness but the referral occurs then the scrabbling magnetite does not occur. sent12: the scrabbling magnetite occurs if that the contextualness does not occur and the polytheisticness does not occur is false. sent13: the non-asterismalness is brought about by that the monumentalness does not occur and the abusing optimist does not occur. sent14: the solving does not occur and the castigation does not occur. sent15: that the digitalness happens is prevented by that the captioning happens and/or that the digitalness does not occur. sent16: the fact that both the non-contextualness and the non-polytheisticness occurs is false if the fictionalization does not occur. sent17: if the mouse does not occur both the abusing Dracocephalum and the caption occurs. sent18: the polytheisticness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true.

¬({D} & {E})

sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur.

sent1: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent4: {N} -> ¬(¬{K} & {M}) sent5: {C} -> {D} sent6: {AD} -> ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) sent7: (¬{D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent8: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent9: (¬{J} & {K}) -> ¬{H} sent10: ¬(¬{K} & {M}) -> {K} sent11: ({A} v {B}) sent12: (¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent13: {B} -> {C} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ¬({U} & ¬{AA}) -> ¬{P} sent16: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent17: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent18: ({N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{L} sent19: ¬{Q} -> ({G} & {L}) sent20: {N} sent21: ({AE} & {AD}) sent22: ¬{T} -> ¬(¬{R} & {S}) sent23: {K} -> (¬{J} & {I}) sent24: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent25: ¬(¬{R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent26: ¬{G}

that the fountain happens and the clip-clop happens is false.

¬({D} & {E})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fountain happens and the clip-clop occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the freighting does not occur if the smoldering does not occur and the confluence occurs. sent2: that the confluence does not occur and the freight does not occur does not hold if that the smoldering does not occur is not wrong. sent3: if the unreadiness does not occur that the fountain and the clip-clop happens is false. sent4: the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser occurs does not hold if the hail happens. sent5: that the fountain does not occur is prevented by the countermand. sent6: if the disintegrativeness happens the fact that the fruitfulness happens and the ampleness does not occur is incorrect. sent7: if the fountain does not occur and the countermand occurs the Tantricness does not occur. sent8: that the succussion does not occur causes that the hailing and the cantering occurs. sent9: that the marketplace does not occur but the gelling escaped occurs results in that the smoldering does not occur. sent10: if the fact that not the gelling escaped but the scrabbling dosser happens is false the gelling escaped occurs. sent11: either the unreadiness happens or the Tantricness happens or both. sent12: the smoldering does not occur if the marketplace does not occur and the gelling pas happens. sent13: that the Tantricness occurs prevents that the countermand does not occur. sent14: that the unreadiness happens causes that the countermand occurs. sent15: the succussion does not occur if that both the fruitfulness and the non-ampleness occurs is not correct. sent16: that the anamnesticness does not occur results in that not the marketplace but the gelling escaped occurs. sent17: the fact that the countermand does not occur and the Tantricness does not occur is wrong if the freight does not occur. sent18: that the hail but not the scrabbling dosser happens yields the non-anamnesticness. sent19: that the confluence happens and the anamnesticness occurs is triggered by that the fartlek does not occur. sent20: the hail occurs. sent21: the glomerularness occurs and the disintegrativeness happens. sent22: the fact that that not the conchology but the Procrusteanness occurs does not hold if the gelling headmastership does not occur is correct. sent23: that not the marketplace but the gelling pas occurs is brought about by that the gelling escaped happens. sent24: if the confluence does not occur both the clip-clop and the freighting happens. sent25: if the fact that the conchology does not occur and the Procrusteanness happens is false then the fartlek does not occur. sent26: the confluence does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent11 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the countermand occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fountain happens.; sent24 & sent26 -> int3: the clip-clop and the freight happens.; int3 -> int4: the clip-clop happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the depression does scrabble murre.

{A}{a}

sent1: the fact that the fact that something is proper or it is not a kind of a brutalization or both is correct is not true if it is residential. sent2: if something is not a kind of a brutalization then the fact that it scrabbles murre is not false. sent3: if something is not radical and bombproofs then it is not antigenic. sent4: the divinity scrabbles murre. sent5: the depression does scrabble murre. sent6: something that is not antigenic gels backdrop and is residential. sent7: the nutshell is not a radical but it bombproofs. sent8: that the depression does romanticize hold. sent9: The murre does scrabble depression. sent10: that the nutshell does not jell backdrop but it is residential does not hold. sent11: the fact that the lobscouse scrabbles murre is not false.

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

the depression does not scrabble murre.

¬{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the depression does scrabble murre. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that something is proper or it is not a kind of a brutalization or both is correct is not true if it is residential. sent2: if something is not a kind of a brutalization then the fact that it scrabbles murre is not false. sent3: if something is not radical and bombproofs then it is not antigenic. sent4: the divinity scrabbles murre. sent5: the depression does scrabble murre. sent6: something that is not antigenic gels backdrop and is residential. sent7: the nutshell is not a radical but it bombproofs. sent8: that the depression does romanticize hold. sent9: The murre does scrabble depression. sent10: that the nutshell does not jell backdrop but it is residential does not hold. sent11: the fact that the lobscouse scrabbles murre is not false. ; $proof$ =

sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular and it is not astigmatic.

(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

sent1: something is both a lack and not a Macleod if that it is a kind of a cocarboxylase is not false. sent2: if the Wight is a Mexican it is immaterial and it is not a kind of a phycobilin. sent3: if something does tuck Guadeloupe it is Indian and it does not abuse testimony. sent4: if something is a meadowgrass it is inward and it is not a princewood. sent5: something is a Tibetan but it does not scrabble cyberart if it is behavioral. sent6: there exists something such that if it is hydrodynamics it is aposiopetic and it is not an angioplasty. sent7: there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular and it is astigmatic. sent8: the reflex is both not non-avuncular and not non-astigmatic if it is a phycobilin. sent9: something that is phosphorous is a kind of aboral thing that is not aposiopetic. sent10: something that is a phycobilin is both avuncular and astigmatic. sent11: there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular. sent12: the reflex is avuncular if it is a kind of a phycobilin. sent13: there exists something such that if it abuses porker it is an abdominal that is not a princewood. sent14: something is lenten and not lucky if it is a kind of a Mendelian. sent15: something is a kind of a Bryum that is not a kind of a pegmatite if it is bentonitic. sent16: a phycobilin is not non-avuncular and not astigmatic. sent17: if the reflex is bumpy it abrades and it is not a brainworker. sent18: that something is avuncular if it is a kind of a phycobilin is true. sent19: there exists something such that if it does abuse Blackshirt then it is both fissionable and not a tramline.

sent1: (x): {JB}x -> ({GP}x & ¬{FG}x) sent2: {HL}{m} -> ({EE}{m} & ¬{A}{m}) sent3: (x): {EO}x -> ({IR}x & ¬{BD}x) sent4: (x): {EB}x -> ({HN}x & ¬{HG}x) sent5: (x): {S}x -> ({DA}x & ¬{L}x) sent6: (Ex): {JH}x -> ({FI}x & ¬{DL}x) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {DQ}x -> ({DK}x & ¬{FI}x) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent12: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent13: (Ex): {IO}x -> ({IF}x & ¬{HG}x) sent14: (x): {FA}x -> ({F}x & ¬{EQ}x) sent15: (x): {JA}x -> ({BH}x & ¬{ED}x) sent16: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent17: {GB}{aa} -> ({FR}{aa} & ¬{DP}{aa}) sent18: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x sent19: (Ex): {EJ}x -> ({FM}x & ¬{HF}x)

there is something such that if it is bentonitic it is a Bryum and is not a pegmatite.

(Ex): {JA}x -> ({BH}x & ¬{ED}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular and it is not astigmatic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both a lack and not a Macleod if that it is a kind of a cocarboxylase is not false. sent2: if the Wight is a Mexican it is immaterial and it is not a kind of a phycobilin. sent3: if something does tuck Guadeloupe it is Indian and it does not abuse testimony. sent4: if something is a meadowgrass it is inward and it is not a princewood. sent5: something is a Tibetan but it does not scrabble cyberart if it is behavioral. sent6: there exists something such that if it is hydrodynamics it is aposiopetic and it is not an angioplasty. sent7: there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular and it is astigmatic. sent8: the reflex is both not non-avuncular and not non-astigmatic if it is a phycobilin. sent9: something that is phosphorous is a kind of aboral thing that is not aposiopetic. sent10: something that is a phycobilin is both avuncular and astigmatic. sent11: there is something such that if it is a phycobilin it is avuncular. sent12: the reflex is avuncular if it is a kind of a phycobilin. sent13: there exists something such that if it abuses porker it is an abdominal that is not a princewood. sent14: something is lenten and not lucky if it is a kind of a Mendelian. sent15: something is a kind of a Bryum that is not a kind of a pegmatite if it is bentonitic. sent16: a phycobilin is not non-avuncular and not astigmatic. sent17: if the reflex is bumpy it abrades and it is not a brainworker. sent18: that something is avuncular if it is a kind of a phycobilin is true. sent19: there exists something such that if it does abuse Blackshirt then it is both fissionable and not a tramline. ; $proof$ =

sent16 -> int1: the reflex is avuncular and is not astigmatic if it is a kind of a phycobilin.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold.

¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoat. sent3: if there is something such that it either does not abuse undercoat or is not internal or both then the chlorofucin is not stenographic. sent4: the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and is not a Thuja is not right. sent5: there is something such that it does abuse undercoat or is not internal or both. sent6: if something is not a kind of a Malathion but it is a kind of a jade it is not wiry. sent7: the chlorofucin is not a kind of a deep and/or it is non-respiratory if it is stenographic. sent8: something is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja if it is not wiry. sent9: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and not a Thuja is not correct. sent10: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. sent11: that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct. sent12: either something is not internal or it is a kind of a Thuja or both. sent13: the ionization is not stenographic if either something does not abuse undercoat or it is not a Thuja or both. sent14: either the ionization does abuse undercoat or it is not internal or both. sent15: that the trombonist is a kind of stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat does not hold if the ionization is not stenographic. sent16: the ionization does not abuse undercoat or is internal or both.

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

there exists something such that it is not a deep or is not respiratory or both.

(Ex): (¬{II}x v ¬{FH}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the ionization is non-stenographic and/or abuses undercoat. sent2: the fact that the ionization does not abuse undercoat but it is stenographic is not right if the trombonist does not abuse undercoat. sent3: if there is something such that it either does not abuse undercoat or is not internal or both then the chlorofucin is not stenographic. sent4: the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and is not a Thuja is not right. sent5: there is something such that it does abuse undercoat or is not internal or both. sent6: if something is not a kind of a Malathion but it is a kind of a jade it is not wiry. sent7: the chlorofucin is not a kind of a deep and/or it is non-respiratory if it is stenographic. sent8: something is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja if it is not wiry. sent9: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is stenographic and not a Thuja is not correct. sent10: if the chlorofucin is not stenographic the fact that the trombonist is not stenographic and it is not a Thuja is incorrect. sent11: that the chlorofucin is non-stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat is not correct. sent12: either something is not internal or it is a kind of a Thuja or both. sent13: the ionization is not stenographic if either something does not abuse undercoat or it is not a Thuja or both. sent14: either the ionization does abuse undercoat or it is not internal or both. sent15: that the trombonist is a kind of stenographic thing that does not abuse undercoat does not hold if the ionization is not stenographic. sent16: the ionization does not abuse undercoat or is internal or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect.

¬((Ex): {B}x)

sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement.

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

there exists something such that that it gels Mutinus and abuses ripple does not hold.

(Ex): ¬({JF}x & {ED}x)

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is an oleander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the decumary is a kind of an oleander if the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent2: the assemblyman is a durance if there exists something such that the fact that it scrabbles decumary and is a kind of a Mutinus is wrong. sent3: the go-kart is a durance. sent4: there exists something such that that it does scrabble decumary and is a Mutinus is not incorrect. sent5: everything is a guereza. sent6: there exists something such that it is inexcusable. sent7: there exists something such that it is unavailable. sent8: if there exists something such that it is not a Mutinus the assemblyman is a kind of a durance. sent9: there is something such that that it does scrabble decumary and it is a Mutinus does not hold. sent10: something that is a guereza is hymeneal and is not a kind of an appeasement. sent11: the fact that the decumary is an oleander and is a kind of a T-junction is not true if the disbeliever is not an appeasement. ; $proof$ =

sent9 & sent2 -> int1: that the assemblyman is a durance is not false.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the decumary is an oleander.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio.

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

the photocopier is not a Kuroshio.

¬{AB}{cj}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio. ; $context$ = sent1: the dovekie is not a tremble. sent2: if that the punchboard is not a kind of a indigestibility but it is a kind of a Kuroshio is not right the dovekie does jell Carum. sent3: something that does not scrabble punchboard is not a kind of a Kuroshio. sent4: if that that either the punchboard does abuse acetate or it does not scrabble punchboard or both is not false does not hold then the photocopier does not scrabble punchboard. sent5: the dovekie does not jell Carum if there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent6: there exists something such that it does not scrabble punchboard. sent7: that something does abuse acetate and/or it does not scrabble punchboard does not hold if it gels Carum. sent8: the fact that the dovekie scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tremble. sent9: if the fact that something scrabbles fitter but it is not a kind of a Rhadamanthus is not right then it does not scrabbles fitter. sent10: the dovekie gels Carum if the punchboard is not a Kuroshio. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the punchboard is not a indigestibility but it is a Kuroshio does not hold.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the dovekie does jell Carum.; sent6 & sent5 -> int2: the dovekie does not jell Carum.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut.

({D}{a} & {E}{a})

sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a demythologization is right. sent4: if a counterespionage is a Mammut the carotene is a neutral. sent5: the gunnery is a kind of a counterespionage. sent6: something is a kind of a thumbprint and is not a demythologization if it is not neutral. sent7: the carotene is a Mammut. sent8: there exists something such that it is a Mammut. sent9: that something is a counterespionage that is a kind of a Mammut does not hold if the fact that it is not a demythologization is not incorrect. sent10: if something is a Mammut the fact that the fact that the Tunisian is a kind of a neutral and is a unappetizingness is incorrect is correct. sent11: something is a kind of a thumbprint. sent12: if the carotene is a kind of a quad then it is a kind of an intern. sent13: the carotene is a neutral if something that is a demythologization is a thumbprint. sent14: the nucleosynthesis is Jurassic and it is a thumbprint. sent15: something is unpeaceful if that it is not a kind of a counterespionage and it is not unpeaceful is not correct. sent16: the carotene is a kind of a thumbprint. sent17: if the invitation is a neutral it does jell noon. sent18: something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. sent19: something is not a demythologization and is a thumbprint if it is not a neutral. sent20: something is not a neutral if that it is neutral and a unappetizingness does not hold. sent21: the fact that that the carotene is not a counterespionage and not unpeaceful is not wrong is wrong if there exists something such that it is a counterespionage. sent22: the carotene does jell siderocyte if it is a thumbprint.

sent1: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {DA}{a} sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> {C}{a} sent5: {D}{b} sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {E}{a} sent8: (Ex): {E}x sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: {DE}{a} -> {ED}{a} sent13: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} sent14: ({IR}{ht} & {B}{ht}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{BE}x) -> {BE}x sent16: {B}{a} sent17: {C}{fo} -> {BJ}{fo} sent18: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent19: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent20: (x): ¬({C}x & {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent21: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{BE}{a}) sent22: {B}{a} -> {DS}{a}

that the carotene is a counterespionage and it is a Mammut is incorrect.

¬({D}{a} & {E}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the carotene is a kind of a counterespionage that is a Mammut. ; $context$ = sent1: the carotene is a counterespionage if it is a neutral. sent2: the carotene is heathlike if there exists something such that it is a thumbprint and is not a demythologization. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is a demythologization is right. sent4: if a counterespionage is a Mammut the carotene is a neutral. sent5: the gunnery is a kind of a counterespionage. sent6: something is a kind of a thumbprint and is not a demythologization if it is not neutral. sent7: the carotene is a Mammut. sent8: there exists something such that it is a Mammut. sent9: that something is a counterespionage that is a kind of a Mammut does not hold if the fact that it is not a demythologization is not incorrect. sent10: if something is a Mammut the fact that the fact that the Tunisian is a kind of a neutral and is a unappetizingness is incorrect is correct. sent11: something is a kind of a thumbprint. sent12: if the carotene is a kind of a quad then it is a kind of an intern. sent13: the carotene is a neutral if something that is a demythologization is a thumbprint. sent14: the nucleosynthesis is Jurassic and it is a thumbprint. sent15: something is unpeaceful if that it is not a kind of a counterespionage and it is not unpeaceful is not correct. sent16: the carotene is a kind of a thumbprint. sent17: if the invitation is a neutral it does jell noon. sent18: something that does not jell diathermy and is not a unappetizingness is not a neutral. sent19: something is not a demythologization and is a thumbprint if it is not a neutral. sent20: something is not a neutral if that it is neutral and a unappetizingness does not hold. sent21: the fact that that the carotene is not a counterespionage and not unpeaceful is not wrong is wrong if there exists something such that it is a counterespionage. sent22: the carotene does jell siderocyte if it is a thumbprint. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not abuse city then that it is Incan and/or it is a Myocastor does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x)

sent1: if the sandfly is not Incan the fact that it is least or does jell blowing or both does not hold. sent2: if the browntail is not pathological that it is technological and/or detracts is not correct. sent3: the browntail is not a kind of a latch if it is not a Myocastor. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a tall it does detract and/or does jell acetin. sent5: the fact that the Hamlet does abuse city or is chromatographic or both is not correct if that it is not Ebionite is not false. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is not pugilistic is right it does not tell. sent7: that either the browntail is Incan or it is a kind of a Myocastor or both is not correct if it does not abuse city. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a discipleship then it is demotic and/or it is Ebionite. sent9: the fact that the Carver is a kind of a sagacity and/or scrabbles Carcharodon is incorrect if it is a kind of an enlistment. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not tuck submergence then it is not non-facial and/or is a Terrapene. sent11: if something is not mesenteric the fact that it is a kind of a fill or transports or both is false. sent12: if the browntail is not a Drosophyllum that it either is experiential or is saxicolous or both is incorrect. sent13: that that the reincarnation appends or it sours or both is not correct is right if it is not a Guangzhou. sent14: that the fact that the stele either scrabbles vermiculite or does jell Jonson or both is not false is incorrect if it is polymorphic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not an itinerant then either it scrabbles maze or it is a jawbreaker or both. sent16: that the browntail does scrabble Carcharodon or it is a facial or both is not correct if it is a Myocastor. sent17: the fact that that either the browntail is Incan or it is a sneaking or both hold is not correct if it does not tuck Hamlet. sent18: the browntail is Incan or is a transport or both if it is not tall. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a trident it is a kind of a Tolectin and/or does engulf.

sent1: ¬{AA}{em} -> ¬({FI}{em} v {HL}{em}) sent2: ¬{AF}{aa} -> ¬({DP}{aa} v {BF}{aa}) sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{DG}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{GA}x -> ({BF}x v {DD}x) sent5: ¬{C}{hs} -> ¬({A}{hs} v {AQ}{hs}) sent6: (Ex): ¬{CH}x -> ¬{HF}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{AR}x -> ({IL}x v {C}x) sent9: {IJ}{do} -> ¬({GG}{do} v {DK}{do}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{JC}x -> ({IU}x v {BL}x) sent11: (x): ¬{EL}x -> ¬({JI}x v {BP}x) sent12: ¬{GP}{aa} -> ¬({IM}{aa} v {BG}{aa}) sent13: ¬{FE}{el} -> ¬({ER}{el} v {HK}{el}) sent14: {JH}{eu} -> ¬({GR}{eu} v {L}{eu}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> ({EI}x v {FP}x) sent16: {AB}{aa} -> ¬({DK}{aa} v {IU}{aa}) sent17: ¬{IP}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AE}{aa}) sent18: ¬{GA}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {BP}{aa}) sent19: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ({IA}x v {EP}x)

that the churchyard is a kind of a fill and/or it does transport is not correct if it is not mesenteric.

¬{EL}{hp} -> ¬({JI}{hp} v {BP}{hp})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not abuse city then that it is Incan and/or it is a Myocastor does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sandfly is not Incan the fact that it is least or does jell blowing or both does not hold. sent2: if the browntail is not pathological that it is technological and/or detracts is not correct. sent3: the browntail is not a kind of a latch if it is not a Myocastor. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a tall it does detract and/or does jell acetin. sent5: the fact that the Hamlet does abuse city or is chromatographic or both is not correct if that it is not Ebionite is not false. sent6: there is something such that if the fact that it is not pugilistic is right it does not tell. sent7: that either the browntail is Incan or it is a kind of a Myocastor or both is not correct if it does not abuse city. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a discipleship then it is demotic and/or it is Ebionite. sent9: the fact that the Carver is a kind of a sagacity and/or scrabbles Carcharodon is incorrect if it is a kind of an enlistment. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not tuck submergence then it is not non-facial and/or is a Terrapene. sent11: if something is not mesenteric the fact that it is a kind of a fill or transports or both is false. sent12: if the browntail is not a Drosophyllum that it either is experiential or is saxicolous or both is incorrect. sent13: that that the reincarnation appends or it sours or both is not correct is right if it is not a Guangzhou. sent14: that the fact that the stele either scrabbles vermiculite or does jell Jonson or both is not false is incorrect if it is polymorphic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not an itinerant then either it scrabbles maze or it is a jawbreaker or both. sent16: that the browntail does scrabble Carcharodon or it is a facial or both is not correct if it is a Myocastor. sent17: the fact that that either the browntail is Incan or it is a sneaking or both hold is not correct if it does not tuck Hamlet. sent18: the browntail is Incan or is a transport or both if it is not tall. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a trident it is a kind of a Tolectin and/or does engulf. ; $proof$ =

sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the monotype does scrabble bummer.

{B}{aa}

sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile.

sent1: ¬{A}{hj} sent2: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: ¬{AE}{aa} sent4: {HG}{iu} -> ¬{BM}{iu} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{A}{aa} sent8: {BG}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬{AA}{df} sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$hypothesis$ = the monotype does scrabble bummer. ; $context$ = sent1: the treat is not a gentile. sent2: something does not scrabble bummer if it is a love-in-a-mist. sent3: that the monotype is not a simian is not wrong. sent4: if the zeaxanthin is a transferrin then it is not brachial. sent5: that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya is false if it is not a gentile. sent6: if that something is not a love-in-a-mist and it is not a Romneya does not hold then it does not scrabble bummer. sent7: the monotype is not a kind of a gentile. sent8: the monotype is not a gentile if it is unthematic. sent9: the Teuton is not a kind of a love-in-a-mist. sent10: something is not a love-in-a-mist if it is gentile. ; $proof$ =

sent6 -> int1: that that the monotype does not scrabble bummer is not wrong if that the monotype is both not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya is wrong is not incorrect.; sent5 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the monotype is not a love-in-a-mist and not a Romneya does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the estimableness and/or the dynamic happens.

({B} v {C})

sent1: both the Oldness and the estimableness occurs.

sent1: ({A} & {B})

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the estimableness and/or the dynamic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the Oldness and the estimableness occurs. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> int1: the estimableness occurs.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong.

¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not jell Transfiguration then that the inspiration is autographic and does not scrabble dressing is not right. sent4: that the rugulah is quadraphonic thing that does not jell Araneae is incorrect if the hatchery is voluntary. sent5: if the scandium is not epicyclic either it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both. sent6: if the fact that the LP is a kind of a soffit but it is not epicyclic is wrong then the scandium is not epicyclic. sent7: that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. sent8: if that something is a kind of autographic thing that does not scrabble dressing is wrong then it is not autographic. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is quadraphonic and does not jell Araneae is not right then the additive is not quadraphonic. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both is not wrong then the Uighur does not jell Transfiguration. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it tucks Uighur and is not a voluntary is not correct. sent12: the LP is a kind of a Palaemonidae. sent13: the fact that the hatchery is a kind of a none but it does not abuse bummer does not hold if something does not jell spume. sent14: if there is something such that it is not autographic the scavenger does not jell spume and does not jell spandrel. sent15: if the fact that something is a none that does not abuse bummer does not hold then it is a voluntary. sent16: the fact that the LP is both a soffit and not epicyclic is wrong if it is a Palaemonidae. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it does abuse philadelphus and does not jell impermeability is false.

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

the additive is not quadraphonic.

¬{EU}{dc}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that the fact that it abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the rugulah is not a kind of a wagtail is not incorrect then that it does scrabble angioplasty and is a thiazide is wrong. sent2: the rugulah is not a kind of a voluntary. sent3: if there exists something such that it does not jell Transfiguration then that the inspiration is autographic and does not scrabble dressing is not right. sent4: that the rugulah is quadraphonic thing that does not jell Araneae is incorrect if the hatchery is voluntary. sent5: if the scandium is not epicyclic either it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both. sent6: if the fact that the LP is a kind of a soffit but it is not epicyclic is wrong then the scandium is not epicyclic. sent7: that the rugulah does abuse postscript but it does not tuck Uighur is not correct if it is not a voluntary. sent8: if that something is a kind of autographic thing that does not scrabble dressing is wrong then it is not autographic. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is quadraphonic and does not jell Araneae is not right then the additive is not quadraphonic. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a goniometer or it does not jell Transfiguration or both is not wrong then the Uighur does not jell Transfiguration. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it tucks Uighur and is not a voluntary is not correct. sent12: the LP is a kind of a Palaemonidae. sent13: the fact that the hatchery is a kind of a none but it does not abuse bummer does not hold if something does not jell spume. sent14: if there is something such that it is not autographic the scavenger does not jell spume and does not jell spandrel. sent15: if the fact that something is a none that does not abuse bummer does not hold then it is a voluntary. sent16: the fact that the LP is both a soffit and not epicyclic is wrong if it is a Palaemonidae. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it does abuse philadelphus and does not jell impermeability is false. ; $proof$ =

sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the rugulah abuses postscript and does not tuck Uighur is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission.

¬{D}{b}

sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that does not scrabble pretermission then the follow-up is not a lurker. sent4: the follow-up is not a kind of a Mediterranean. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Mediterranean. sent6: the follow-up does not scrabble pretermission if something is not Mediterranean and it is not a lurker. sent7: if the follow-up is Mycenaean it does not abuse chance-medley and it is not a rise. sent8: something is not a kind of a lurker but it is Mediterranean. sent9: if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean. sent10: the follow-up is not a scolion and is not a Mediterranean. sent11: the reproduction is not a lurker. sent12: the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission if something that is not a lurker is not a Mediterranean. sent13: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Adalia. sent14: there is something such that it is not a pliers. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it does not jell follow-up hold. sent16: there is something such that it is Mycenaean.

sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬{IQ}{b} sent2: {D}{c} -> {B}{c} sent3: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent6: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> (¬{HJ}{a} & ¬{FE}{a}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent9: ¬(¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent10: (¬{IG}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (Ex): ¬{HR}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{GK}x sent15: (Ex): ¬{AP}x sent16: (Ex): {A}x

there is something such that it does not abuse chance-medley and it does not rise.

(Ex): (¬{HJ}x & ¬{FE}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is Mycenaean is true then the fact that the reproduction does not jell sinker is correct. sent2: the yachtsman is a kind of a lurker if it scrabbles pretermission. sent3: if something is non-Mediterranean thing that does not scrabble pretermission then the follow-up is not a lurker. sent4: the follow-up is not a kind of a Mediterranean. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Mediterranean. sent6: the follow-up does not scrabble pretermission if something is not Mediterranean and it is not a lurker. sent7: if the follow-up is Mycenaean it does not abuse chance-medley and it is not a rise. sent8: something is not a kind of a lurker but it is Mediterranean. sent9: if the fact that the fact that the reproduction is not Mycenaean and/or is not Mediterranean hold is false then the follow-up is Mycenaean. sent10: the follow-up is not a scolion and is not a Mediterranean. sent11: the reproduction is not a lurker. sent12: the reproduction does not scrabble pretermission if something that is not a lurker is not a Mediterranean. sent13: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Adalia. sent14: there is something such that it is not a pliers. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it does not jell follow-up hold. sent16: there is something such that it is Mycenaean. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold.

sent1: ({HQ} & {EH}) sent2: {C} sent3: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{ED}) sent4: ¬(¬{AL} & ¬{HI}) -> ¬{IL} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: ({CR} & {FH}) sent7: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{GR}) -> ¬{CC} sent10: {FQ} sent11: {FB} sent12: {AQ} sent13: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent14: {EO} sent15: ({A} & {C}) sent16: ¬{GM} sent17: ¬(¬{BC} & ¬{JH}) -> ¬{HT} sent18: ¬(¬{GM} & ¬{AI}) sent19: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

that the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction occurs is not incorrect does not hold.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the fact that the speculating does not occur and the counterattraction occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the processing occurs and the chlamydialness happens. sent2: the uncreativeness occurs. sent3: that the stead does not occur and the codification does not occur is false. sent4: the flouncing does not occur if the fact that the elimination does not occur and the manicure does not occur is wrong. sent5: that both the non-nomotheticness and the penitentness occurs is wrong. sent6: the adagio and the security occurs. sent7: the fact that the speculating does not occur but the counterattraction happens is false if the uncreativeness does not occur. sent8: if that the non-nomotheticness and the non-impenitentness occurs is incorrect then the speculating does not occur. sent9: if that the bagatelle does not occur and the malfeasance does not occur is false then that the gelling sadism does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: the earthing happens. sent11: the fact that the vicissitude occurs is right. sent12: the abusing pheno-safranine occurs. sent13: if the impenitentness occurs then the speculating does not occur. sent14: the basic happens. sent15: the counterattraction happens and the uncreativeness occurs. sent16: the typology does not occur. sent17: the speleology does not occur if that the paraphrasing does not occur and the bathymetry does not occur does not hold. sent18: the fact that the typology does not occur and the segregation does not occur is incorrect. sent19: that the nomotheticness does not occur and the impenitentness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

sent8 & sent5 -> int1: the speculating does not occur.; sent15 -> int2: the counterattraction occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

there exists something such that if it does not scrabble imperfectibility and/or it does encourage then it is a forklift.

(Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x

sent1: the carotene is utopian if it either is not a kind of a Walesa or is a kind of a triumvir or both. sent2: there exists something such that if either it zeroes or it does abuse adnoun or both it is an affirmative. sent3: the carotene encourages if it is a kind of a turmeric and/or is greenside. sent4: if the carotene does not scrabble imperfectibility or encourages or both it is a kind of a forklift. sent5: if either the daylily is a gap or it ambushes or both it is a duchy. sent6: there exists something such that if either it does scrabble cleavers or it is utopian or both it is structural. sent7: if the carotene encourages it is a kind of a forklift. sent8: there is something such that if it is not uncertain and/or it does jell braid it is a creatine. sent9: there is something such that if that it is not a demythologization is right then it is a kind of a prolapse. sent10: if either the shrub is not a bind or it gladdens or both then it is a rustiness. sent11: the braid is a Walesa if it is a kind of a irresoluteness. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble imperfectibility then it is a forklift. sent13: there exists something such that if it is unwholesome and/or does jell quickstep then that it does tuck goalpost is correct. sent14: there exists something such that if it is pyrrhic then it is semantic. sent15: the carotene is a forklift if it scrabbles imperfectibility or it encourages or both. sent16: there is something such that if it gels shrub then that it does gladden hold. sent17: there is something such that if it is Rembrandtesque and/or a uplink then it is proportionate. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a law it is a kind of a Sabbatarian. sent19: there exists something such that if it encourages then it is a forklift.

sent1: (¬{FF}{aa} v {BO}{aa}) -> {HK}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({BR}x v {II}x) -> {FM}x sent3: ({BK}{aa} v {HU}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: ({FB}{gp} v {BQ}{gp}) -> {DK}{gp} sent6: (Ex): ({EJ}x v {HK}x) -> {AG}x sent7: {AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent8: (Ex): (¬{HG}x v {FR}x) -> {JG}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{DO}x -> {CJ}x sent10: (¬{HP}{ik} v {IU}{ik}) -> {DI}{ik} sent11: {DH}{as} -> {FF}{as} sent12: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x sent13: (Ex): ({BP}x v {AL}x) -> {BA}x sent14: (Ex): {CB}x -> {EL}x sent15: ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent16: (Ex): {BF}x -> {IU}x sent17: (Ex): ({FS}x v {CC}x) -> {GG}x sent18: (Ex): ¬{GD}x -> {IM}x sent19: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not scrabble imperfectibility and/or it does encourage then it is a forklift. ; $context$ = sent1: the carotene is utopian if it either is not a kind of a Walesa or is a kind of a triumvir or both. sent2: there exists something such that if either it zeroes or it does abuse adnoun or both it is an affirmative. sent3: the carotene encourages if it is a kind of a turmeric and/or is greenside. sent4: if the carotene does not scrabble imperfectibility or encourages or both it is a kind of a forklift. sent5: if either the daylily is a gap or it ambushes or both it is a duchy. sent6: there exists something such that if either it does scrabble cleavers or it is utopian or both it is structural. sent7: if the carotene encourages it is a kind of a forklift. sent8: there is something such that if it is not uncertain and/or it does jell braid it is a creatine. sent9: there is something such that if that it is not a demythologization is right then it is a kind of a prolapse. sent10: if either the shrub is not a bind or it gladdens or both then it is a rustiness. sent11: the braid is a Walesa if it is a kind of a irresoluteness. sent12: there exists something such that if it does not scrabble imperfectibility then it is a forklift. sent13: there exists something such that if it is unwholesome and/or does jell quickstep then that it does tuck goalpost is correct. sent14: there exists something such that if it is pyrrhic then it is semantic. sent15: the carotene is a forklift if it scrabbles imperfectibility or it encourages or both. sent16: there is something such that if it gels shrub then that it does gladden hold. sent17: there is something such that if it is Rembrandtesque and/or a uplink then it is proportionate. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a law it is a kind of a Sabbatarian. sent19: there exists something such that if it encourages then it is a forklift. ; $proof$ =

sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

the repression does not occur and the hoofing occurs.

(¬{B} & {A})

sent1: the repression is prevented by that the fumigation occurs but the abusing onrush does not occur. sent2: the fearfulness does not occur. sent3: the labialness occurs. sent4: the fact that the repression does not occur and the hoofing occurs is not true if that the labial does not occur is true. sent5: that the hoofing does not occur results in that the nebule does not occur and the gelling Rawalpindi occurs. sent6: that the Hadith and the inextinguishableness occurs is caused by that the cabaret does not occur. sent7: the abusing onrush does not occur. sent8: if the enslavement occurs then either the labial occurs or the repression does not occur or both. sent9: the labial does not occur if not the interruption but the enslavement happens. sent10: that the repression happens is prevented by that both the fumigation and the abusing onrush happens. sent11: the scrabbling cobnut occurs. sent12: if the inextinguishableness occurs the masculine happens and the interruption does not occur. sent13: the hoofing and the labial happens. sent14: the boodle occurs. sent15: the cabaret does not occur if the fearfulness does not occur.

sent1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{N} sent3: {C} sent4: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) sent5: ¬{A} -> (¬{DN} & {FT}) sent6: ¬{K} -> ({J} & {G}) sent7: ¬{AB} sent8: {D} -> ({C} v ¬{B}) sent9: (¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} sent10: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: {AJ} sent12: {G} -> ({F} & ¬{E}) sent13: ({A} & {C}) sent14: {EN} sent15: ¬{N} -> ¬{K}

that the repression does not occur and the hoofing happens is incorrect.

¬(¬{B} & {A})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the repression does not occur and the hoofing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the repression is prevented by that the fumigation occurs but the abusing onrush does not occur. sent2: the fearfulness does not occur. sent3: the labialness occurs. sent4: the fact that the repression does not occur and the hoofing occurs is not true if that the labial does not occur is true. sent5: that the hoofing does not occur results in that the nebule does not occur and the gelling Rawalpindi occurs. sent6: that the Hadith and the inextinguishableness occurs is caused by that the cabaret does not occur. sent7: the abusing onrush does not occur. sent8: if the enslavement occurs then either the labial occurs or the repression does not occur or both. sent9: the labial does not occur if not the interruption but the enslavement happens. sent10: that the repression happens is prevented by that both the fumigation and the abusing onrush happens. sent11: the scrabbling cobnut occurs. sent12: if the inextinguishableness occurs the masculine happens and the interruption does not occur. sent13: the hoofing and the labial happens. sent14: the boodle occurs. sent15: the cabaret does not occur if the fearfulness does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent13 -> int1: the hoofing occurs.; __UNKNOWN__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if it is not a cider then the fact that it is either not amniotic or not epilithic or both does not hold is incorrect.

¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x))

sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a cider then it is epilithic. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a manifold then the fact that it is not patriotic and/or it is not illegal is not true. sent3: if something does not abuse Monopoly that it does not explode or is not a kind of a dandy or both does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does abuse hawk's-beard is true that it does not inflect and/or it is not discordant is not true. sent5: that the fact that the submariner is non-Ghanaian or not epilithic or both is not true if the submariner does not tuck macadamia hold. sent6: if the submariner is not a kind of a cider then that it is amniotic or is not epilithic or both does not hold. sent7: if the submariner is a kind of a cider then the fact that it is not amniotic or it is not epilithic or both is not right. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not tuck scholiast the fact that it does not scrabble E and/or it is not a one-sixteenth is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a Ottoman then the fact that it is not a dejection and/or it is not calciferous is not right. sent10: that something is not playful or it is not alternating or both does not hold if it is not a dejection. sent11: the fact that the submariner is either not amniotic or not epilithic or both is false if it is not a cider.

sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{DM}x -> ¬(¬{HC}x v ¬{FG}x) sent3: (x): ¬{JF}x -> ¬(¬{HA}x v ¬{CE}x) sent4: (Ex): {CU}x -> ¬(¬{GC}x v ¬{AH}x) sent5: ¬{HJ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{R}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{EG}x -> ¬(¬{FM}x v ¬{DA}x) sent9: (Ex): {N}x -> ¬(¬{IP}x v ¬{CT}x) sent10: (x): ¬{IP}x -> ¬(¬{IQ}x v ¬{BL}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

there is something such that if it is not a kind of a dejection then that either it is unplayful or it is not alternating or both does not hold.

(Ex): ¬{IP}x -> ¬(¬{IQ}x v ¬{BL}x)

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a cider then the fact that it is either not amniotic or not epilithic or both does not hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a cider then it is epilithic. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a manifold then the fact that it is not patriotic and/or it is not illegal is not true. sent3: if something does not abuse Monopoly that it does not explode or is not a kind of a dandy or both does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if the fact that it does abuse hawk's-beard is true that it does not inflect and/or it is not discordant is not true. sent5: that the fact that the submariner is non-Ghanaian or not epilithic or both is not true if the submariner does not tuck macadamia hold. sent6: if the submariner is not a kind of a cider then that it is amniotic or is not epilithic or both does not hold. sent7: if the submariner is a kind of a cider then the fact that it is not amniotic or it is not epilithic or both is not right. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not tuck scholiast the fact that it does not scrabble E and/or it is not a one-sixteenth is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a Ottoman then the fact that it is not a dejection and/or it is not calciferous is not right. sent10: that something is not playful or it is not alternating or both does not hold if it is not a dejection. sent11: the fact that the submariner is either not amniotic or not epilithic or both is false if it is not a cider. ; $proof$ =

sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

DeductionInstance

the bars does not occur.

¬{D}

sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur.

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

the bars happens.

{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$hypothesis$ = the bars does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the Zoroastrian occurs if the oblateness occurs. sent2: the Zoroastrianness does not occur if the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz occurs. sent3: if that the stopover happens hold both the non-deductiveness and the abusing fuzz happens. sent4: the oblate happens. sent5: the barring does not occur if the Zoroastrianness and/or the deductiveness happens. sent6: the fact that the bars and the deductiveness happens is incorrect if the abusing fuzz does not occur. ; $proof$ =

sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Zoroastrian happens.; int1 -> int2: the Zoroastrian happens or the deductiveness happens or both.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

DeductionInstance

that there is something such that if the fact that it does not scrabble Maltese is not incorrect it is alimentative is right.

(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x

sent1: the fact that the dugout is alimentative if that the dugout does not scrabble Maltese hold is not false. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a calcium it is odds. sent3: if something is not municipal that it does delineate is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it scrabbles Maltese then it is alimentative. sent5: the yawn is a kind of a scapular if it is not alimentative. sent6: if something is not cucurbitaceous then it is Moldovan. sent7: the Maltese does distrain if it does not scrabble dugout. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a reincarnation it abuses deciliter. sent9: if the dugout scrabbles Maltese it is alimentative. sent10: the dugout scrabbles Maltese if it is not a hadron.

sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> {FB}x sent3: (x): ¬{DK}x -> {CL}x sent4: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: ¬{C}{fb} -> {JJ}{fb} sent6: (x): ¬{DO}x -> {AG}x sent7: ¬{J}{ie} -> {CH}{ie} sent8: (Ex): ¬{HJ}x -> {HN}x sent9: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent10: ¬{CK}{aa} -> {B}{aa}

there exists something such that if it is not cucurbitaceous then it is Moldovan.

(Ex): ¬{DO}x -> {AG}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if the fact that it does not scrabble Maltese is not incorrect it is alimentative is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the dugout is alimentative if that the dugout does not scrabble Maltese hold is not false. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a calcium it is odds. sent3: if something is not municipal that it does delineate is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it scrabbles Maltese then it is alimentative. sent5: the yawn is a kind of a scapular if it is not alimentative. sent6: if something is not cucurbitaceous then it is Moldovan. sent7: the Maltese does distrain if it does not scrabble dugout. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not a reincarnation it abuses deciliter. sent9: if the dugout scrabbles Maltese it is alimentative. sent10: the dugout scrabbles Maltese if it is not a hadron. ; $proof$ =

sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__